Vol.532.1 域外法学 | 《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》（ARSP）2019年（第105卷）第1期

《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》

Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie

Vol. 105 · 2019 · Issue 1 

《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》（Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie）由国际法哲学与社会哲学协会（IVR）出版发行。自1907年创刊以来，期刊注目于社会生活、法律文化及其交互作用的智识基础，进而开展法哲学基础研究。期刊接纳所有的当下思想学派，并尤为注重国际视野。同侪评审的程序保证了刊文的高学术水准。

《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》现任主编为乌尔弗里德·诺依曼（Ulfrid Neumann），德国法兰克福大学法哲学、法社会学、刑法和刑事诉讼法学教授，国际法哲学与社会哲学协会前主席（2011-2015），拉德布鲁赫基金会主席。

《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》2019年（第105卷）第1期共刊载六篇论文与两篇书评，以下为论文摘要与书评信息：

一

论文摘要

1

《自由意志的理由式阐释》

The Reasons Account of Free Will

Julian Nida-Rümelin

基于实践理由的行动愿望构成了自由意志。受到理由引导构成了（自由的）人类能动性（human agency）。我将在本文提供的理由是自由主义式的，因为这意味着人类能动性是自然主义地（naturalistically）不确定的。自然主义的描述仅仅指涉自然原因，并不足以完全地描述与解释人类能动性。另一方面，没有任何科学的论证支持理由的因果关系干涉物理法则这一假设。原则上，物理世界可以在自然科学的概念框架内被描述与解释。理由的因果关系并不干涉物理法则。因此我对自由意志的解释理由也是兼容论（compatibilist）的。 

Free Will is constituted by a desire to act that is based on practical reasons. Being guided by reasons constitutes (free) human agency. The reasons account, which I will develop in this paper, is libertarian, as it implies that human agency is naturalistically underdetermined. Naturalistic descriptions, referring exclusively to natural causes, are not able to fully describe and explain human agency. On the other hand, there are no scientific arguments for the assumption that the causal impact of reasons interferes with the laws of physics. The physical world can - in principle - be described and explained within the conceptual frame of the natural sciences. The causal impact of reasons does not interfere with the laws of physics. Therefore, my reasons account of Free Will is also compatibilist.

2

《法律的优点？》

The Merits of Law

Wibren van der Burg

法律是好的吗？如何才能改善法律？这些问题频繁出现在传统教义学与跨学科法学研究中。在本文，我将详细说明一个用以论证立法改革之评估与建议的通行框架，并且我将识别出进行评估与建议的论证链条。这或许有助于学者开展清晰易懂的论证，从而证成其论证过程每一步骤之选择。这也使读者以及作者得以评估论证结论是否合理与具有说服力。在进行这些论证时，一个关键问题是评估标准的选择。我建议最好将之理解为依据基础价值所作的选择。为作出通盘考量的评估与规范性的建议，教义学、法社会学、法哲学学者间的跨学科合作甚为必要。因此，个人研究者通常不得不勉为其难地接受在此程度上的评估与建议。

Is the law good? How can it be improved? These questions are frequently addressed, both in traditional doctrinal research and in interdisciplinary legal research. In this article, I elaborate a general argumentative framework for justifying evaluations and recommendations for legislative reform, and I identify the chains of argument for making evaluations and recommendations. This may help researchers to make their arguments explicit and transparent, and then to justify the choices made for each of the steps in the argument. This enables readers - as well as authors - to assess whether the argument’s conclusions are sound and convincing. A key problem in making these arguments concerns the choice of standards for evaluation. I suggest that they can be best understood in terms of the underlying values. In order to make all-things-considered evaluations and normative recommendations, interdisciplinary cooperation between doctrinal, socio-legal, and legal-philosophical researchers is necessary. Therefore, individual researchers will usually have to settle for pro tanto evaluations and recommendations.

3

《法律适用的诸面向》

Aspekte der Rechtsanwendung

Johann Braun

法律适用的程序趋向于在两种模式之中往返：一方面是在“明确的”规则之下进行涵摄，另一方面是对模糊与抽象的一般条款予以解释性的具体化。因此，法律论证同时指涉规则的语义内容以及法律的不证自明。于是，不仅可以通过新的立法来有效地影响法律适用，引介新解释者所使用的一套不同的前观念（preconception）以及因而对法律作出的不同解释，同样有此效果。在文化多元的社会中，由于这些社会的特征在于彼此矛盾的正义概念，控制这两种模式的传统平衡机制受到威胁。受到许多法律学者所渴求的法律自动适用，可以使法律实践摆脱这些彼此矛盾的成见。然而，伴随而来的代价可能会是在一般意义上的法治的减损。

The process of applying the law tends to oscillate between two modes: the subsumption under „clear“ rules on the one hand and the interpretative concretisation of vague and abstract blanket clauses on the other. Legal arguments therefore refer both to the semantic content of rules and to legal self-evidence. Consequently the application of law can effectively be influenced not only through new legislation, but also through the introduction of new interpreters bringing with them a different set of preconceptions, and thus differing interpretations of the law. The traditional balance between these two models of control is endangered in multicultural societies since these societies are characterised by conflicting concepts of justice. An automated application of law, aspired to by many legal scholars, could dispense legal practice from such conflicting prejudices. The price for that gain, however, would likely be a loss of the rule of law in the general understanding. 

4

《一种非历史理论的观念史》

Zur Ideengeschichte einer ungeschichtlichen Theorie

Joshua Folkerts

1971年，约翰·罗尔斯（John Rawls）发表的《正义论》（A Theory of Justice）是政治哲学领域中划时代的作品。尽管它以多种方式被接受并引发了政治理论的复兴，但至今它仍欠缺在观念史中的定位。因此，本文的问题意识在于罗尔斯关涉的是何种历史话语（discourse），并分析罗尔斯的作品在何种意义上构成了这种话语中的地位。罗尔斯的作品将被论证为关涉三种话语。首先，其关涉由霍布斯、洛克、卢梭和康德所建构的社会契约论之间接的（mediate）现代话语。其次，其关涉后现代的直接（immediate）新自由主义话语。第三，现代性与后现代性的中间话语表现出以上两种首次提到的话语之关联。罗尔斯在其正义理论中所做的，是将对国家的具体现代证成转移至其后现代时代。罗尔斯对原初的证成之修正是必要的，因为后现代个性化（individualization）的进程要求一种更为抽象的正当化结构。

In 1971 with his book A Theory of Justice John Rawls brought forward an epoch-making work of Political Philosophy. Although it has been received in multiple ways and caused a renaissance of Political Theory, it lacks a location in the history of ideas as yet. Therefore, in this article the question is considered to which historical discourses Rawls refers as well as analyzed in what sense Rawls’ work constitutes a position of discourse itself. It is argued that Rawls’ work refers to three discourses. Firstly, it refers to the mediate modern discourse of social contract theories established by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Secondly, it refers to the immediate neoliberal discourse of postmodernity. And thirdly, the intermediary discourse of modernity and postmodernity represents the connection between the both first-mentioned discourses. What Rawls does with his Theory of Justice is to transfer the specifically modern justification of the state to his own postmodern time. Rawls’ modifications to the original justification become necessary because the process of postmodern individualization requires a more abstract structure of legitimation.

5

《人的形象》

Menschenbilder

Michael Zichy

 “人的形象（Menschenbild）”（对人类的理解）一词在德国的公共讨论与学术研究中，也包括在诸多的哲学分支中，都扮演着重要角色。然而与此同时，该语词在哲学也备受争议。通过分析道德哲学与法哲学中之争论，本文展示出众多的异见分歧来源于两种严重的误解：该语词的批评者所考虑的是对人类作意识形态上的（ideological）理解，然而拥护者所考虑的则是人类学上的基本预设；以及，批评者主张对人的形象不适宜进行理论证成，然而支持者则强调其于实践语境中的作用。通过更为清晰地区别意识形态的与非意识形态的人的形象、以及区别理论的与实践的人的形象这两个方面，两种误解的发生都可以避免。

The term “Menschenbild” (understanding of the human being) plays an important role in German public and academic discourse, including many branches of philosophy. However, at the same time, the term in highly contested in philosophy. By analyzing the debates in moral and legal philosophy, this paper shows that many disagreements stem from two severe misunderstandings: While the critics of the term have ideological understandings of the human being in mind, advocates think of basic anthropological assumptions; and while critics hold that Menschenbilds are unsuited for theoretical justifications, supporters emphasize their role for practical contexts. Both misunderstandings could be avoided by distinguishing more clearly between ideological and non-ideological Menschenbilds on the one hand, and between theoretical and practical Menschenbilds on the other hand.

6

《自我意识的主体间结构？》

Intersubjektive Konstitution des Selbstbewusstseins?

Sören Lichtenthäler

主奴辩证法（The Dialectics of Lord and Bondsman）发展于黑格尔的精神现象学，其通常被视为用以处理两个不同个体之间充满冲突的互动、最终转化出相互承认关系的方式。然而，这种解读遭受到各式各样来自不同“非正统的”读物的挑战。他们认为至少就现象学而言，黑格尔根本没有以任何方式提出存疑的主体间关系之形式，而只是比喻性地阐释单个个体之自我意识的矛盾因素，或者换言之，单个主体内部的矛盾。通过展现“正统的”著作相容于一手文献、并且批评者的论证也绝非像初看上去那样令人信服，本文旨在捍卫“正统的”著作并反对它们的批评者。

The Dialectics of Lord and Bondsman, developed in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, is usually considered to deal with the conflict-laden interaction of two different individuals and how it finally transforms in a mutual relationship of recognition. However, this interpretation has been variously challenged by different „heterodox“ (McDowell) readings. They suggest that, at least at this stage of the Phenomenology, Hegel does not at all address somehow problematic forms of inter-subjective relationships but only allegorically illustrates contradictory elements of one single self-consciousness or, in other words, of an intra-subjective conflict. This paper aims to defend the “orthodox” readings against their critics by showing that they are compatible with the primary text and that the arguments brought up against them are by far not as compelling as they might seem.

二

书评

1. Kevin M. Dear评Elif Özmen《汉斯·凯尔森的政治哲学》（Hans Kelsens Politische Philosophie）。

2. Wolfgang Hellmich评Otfried Höffe《政治思想史》（Geschichte des politischen Denkens）。

法律思想｜中国政法大学法理学研究所