行政审判援引实质论据的方法论规则  

The methodological rules of invoking substantive arguments inadministrative trial

作　　者：杨铜铜 YANG Tongtong(School of Government,East China University of Politics and Law,Shanghai 200439,China)

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学政府管理学院,上海200439

出　　处：《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第6期49-64,共16页Journal of Central South University：Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社科基金后期资助项目“实质论据司法运用研究”(22FFXB042);上海市哲学社会科学研究青年项目“个人生物识别信息多元保护路径研究”(2020EFX004)。

摘　　要：实质论据是通过自身内容的合理性与说服力来支撑裁判结论的论据形式,属于辅助性论据,能为行政行为的合法性论证提供目的要素、价值标准、法律原理与经验法则等多维理由。行政审判中,实质论据具有认定案件事实、引导法律适用与开展司法论证等多重功能。当前行政审判中,非解释运用致使实质论据难以发挥论证功能,与裁判理由的逻辑不契合致使其论证功能不佳,所呈现的实质推理模式则将行政审判导向不确定性。实质论据属于证立论据,只有经由恰当解释,才具有司法运用的可能性。实质论据属于非法律理由,只有遵守法律论证要求,以及通过法学方法论引导,才能增强司法运用的效果。Substantive arguments serve as a form of argument that supports the judgment conclusion through the rationality and persuasion of its own content,belonging to a kind of auxiliary arguments,which can provide multidimensional justifications for the legality of administrative acts,such as objective element,value standard,principle of law and empirical law.In administrative trial,substantive arguments are of multi-functions of inferring the case facts,guiding the direction of the application of law,and carrying out judicial argumentation.In the current administrative trial,the non-explanatory use of substantive arguments makes it difficult to play the argumentative function,and the logical disparity with the judgment reasons causes the poor argumentative function of the substantive argument,and the nature of the substantive reasoning leads to the uncertainty of the judicial adjudication.Substantive arguments belong to proof argument,and only when they are properly selected and explained,can they have the possibility of judicial application.Substantive arguments are of non-legal reasons,and their judicial application can only be enhanced by adhering to the requirements of legal argumentation,as well as through the guidance of legal methodology.

关 键 词：实质论据 合法性论证 说服性权威 法认知源 法学方法论 

分 类 号：D915.4[政治法律—诉讼法学]