法律漏洞的概念重构  

The Conceptual Reconstruction of Legal Gap

作　　者：魏金荣 Wei Jinrong

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学

出　　处：《南大法学》2025年第2期95-111,共17页NanJing University Law Journal

基　　金：2023年国家社科基金一般项目“我国社会组织法律的修正与配套研究”(23BFX188)阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：法律漏洞的存在所蕴含的张力迫使我们反思其概念问题。在概念上,法律漏洞有三个待解释的初步特征:内容层面,法律没有涵摄案件事实;规范性层面,法官负有裁判义务;法律推理层面,漏洞填补具有能动性。通说认为法律漏洞是“违反计划的不完整性”,即完整的法律计划与实在法之裂缝。计划的获知须透过对法律规范的体系化建构,但无论将法律体系理解为条文体系、内部体系或概念体系,都无力解释前述初步特征。整体的法律实践更基础的特征在于其制度性,理解法律漏洞的概念须透过法官能动的制度性角色,法律漏洞是制度授权法官可裁判的行为类型与法律规范可涵摄的行为类型之裂缝。在司法实践层面,这意味着法官必须承认漏洞填补的司法限度,只有在案件事实确属其有权裁判的行为类型时,其才被允许运用漏洞填补的诸种方法。The existence of legal gaps implies a tension which forces us to reflect on its conceptual problem.Legal gaps have three preliminary conceptual features waiting for explanation:facts of a case cannot be subsumed in legal norms within their contents;judges bear obligations to judge in the normative sense;gap fillings in that situation are active in the sense of legal reasoning.The prevailing view assumes that legal gaps are “incompleteness that violates the legislative plan”,that is,gaps between the complete legislative plan and positive legal norms.The access to the plan needs systematical construction of legal norms.However,the legal system,no matter understood as provisions' system,internal system or conceptual system,cannot help explain those preliminary features.The deeper feature of legal practice as a whole,lies in its institutionality,and we should understand the concept of legal gap via the active institutional role of judges.Legal gaps are gaps between types of action which judges have power to judge authorized by the institution and those which are subsumed in legal norms.In judicial practices,it means that judges must admit the limits of gap filling,and only if the facts of a case belongs to types of action which they have power to adjudicate,judges are allowed to use the methods of gap filling.

关 键 词：法律漏洞 法律的体系性 法律的制度性 法教义学 漏洞填补 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]