Vol.548 域外法学 | 《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》（ARSP）第105卷（2019）第4期

《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》

Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie

Vol. 105 · 2019 · Issue 4 

《法哲学与社会哲学论丛》第105卷（2019）第4期共刊载7篇论文与5篇书评，以下为论文摘要与书评信息：

一

论文摘要

1

《法律学说对俄罗斯立法和司法实践的影响》

Impact of the Legal Doctrine on Lawmaking and Judicial Practice in Russia

Anisimov, Aleksey; Ryzhenkov, Anatoliy; Sokolskaya, Liudmila

本文阐述了后苏联国家（特别是俄罗斯）法律体系中的法律学说（legal doctrine）的现代意义，叙述了其对立法（法律草案的制定、专家审查、立法监督）和司法实践（学理解释、专家意见）的影响。笔者赞成这样的结论，即法律学说是俄罗斯法律体系中独立和重要的组成部分，因为它影响到法律体系的建构和运作，而且根据实践中的需要，在俄罗斯法律体系的不同组成部分中实施。为了加强法律学说在后苏联国家中的作用和意义，笔者就法律学说在立法和司法实践中的规定提出了若干建议。

The article develops the modern significance of the legal doctrine in the post-Soviet (in particular, Russian) legal system, describes its impact on lawmaking (development of draft laws, expert examination, monitoring of legislation) and on judicial practice (doctrinal interpretation, expert opinions). The authors argue in favor of the conclusion that the legal doctrine is an independent and important component of the Russian legal system, as it influences structuring and functioning of the legal system, and, being in demand in practice, is implemented in different components of the country’s legal system. In order to strengthen the role and significance of legal doctrine in the post-Soviet space, the authors make a number of certain proposals on consideration of provisions of legal doctrine in lawmaking and in judicial practice.

2

《刑法哲学与反民主化现象》

The Philosophy of Criminal Law and the Phenomenon of Anti-Democratization

Peno, Michał

本文旨在以波兰立法为例，分析在刑事政策和刑事司法制度的变化和方向下，违反民主法治思想的反民主化进程。刑法领域中的立法者活动需要考量指向自由民主的刑法哲学，该哲学为社会共识中的惩罚性镇压、达成协议的公正程序以及民主机制寻找正当理由，同时保持社会和价值多元主义的理想。这些是承认刑法为正当的边界。反民主化意味着超越这一界限，这是当代刑法哲学的先例和挑战。

The aim of the article is to analyze the processes of anti-democratization as a violation of the idea of the rule of law in the context of changes and directions of criminal policy and criminal justice system, on the example of Polish legislation. Activity of the legislator in the field of criminal law was confronted with the liberal-democratic philosophy of criminal law, which searches for the justification for punitive repression in a social consensus, fair procedures for reaching an agreement, and democratic mechanisms, while maintaining the ideals of social and axiological pluralism. These are the limits of the recognition of criminal law as just. Anti-democratization means that limits are exceeded, which constitutes a precedent and a challenge for the contemporary philosophy of criminal law.

3

《纳粹主义在当代法律理论中的结构持久性及其对巴西法律解释的影响》

The Structural Persistence of Nazism in Contemporary Legal Theory and its Impact on Brazilian Legal Interpretation

Soares de Moura Costa Matos, Andityas; Karine de sá Souza, Joyce

多元主义是21世纪宪法所面临的主要挑战之一，其发展已经偏离了宪法的现实。现代宪法在历史上与民族国家的概念相联系，民族国家是一个由同质社会组成的政治共同体，在这个社会中，公民分享相同的历史、荣誉、英雄和语言，并有强烈的相互归属感。21世纪的社会则与此模式不同，因为它们由混杂的族群组成，他们通常既不分享共同的历史，也没有共同的英雄和语言。在这些社会，就社会组织的基础问题存在着不同的观点，公民有着不同的世界观和生活方式。虽然欧根·埃利希生活在19世纪末20世纪初，但是他工作于象征着多样性的布科维纳地区。因此，相比于身处欧洲法律文化的中心地带，埃利希更有机会以一种不同的方式来思考法律。埃利希对形成于布科维纳诸多社群中“活法（living law）”的观察，使其得以发展出一种非常特殊的、具有不同范畴的法律理论。埃利希的作品为法律多元主义与宪法的协调提供了机会。在此过程中，活法和社团是两个核心概念，但法律规范（legal norm）和法律命令（legal precept）之间的区别同样有价值，因为法律效力在这一法律的双重维度中起着关键作用。这种法律形式从根本上影响着实在法，尤其是在冲突的情况下。然而，法律作为一种通常行为的秩序，也可以通过其实效获得效力。

Pluralism is one of the key challenges of constitutional law in the 21st century. It has been developed away from the reality of constitutional law. Modern constitutional law is historically linked to the concept of the nation-state, a political community formed by a homogenous society in which citizens share the same history, glory, hero and language, and feel a strong mutual sense of belonging. The 21st century societies are different from this model because they are made up of a heterogeneous population that often does not share a common history, nor have the same heroes and language. These are societies in which opinions differ on fundamental issues of social organization and citizens have different worldviews and lifestyles. Although Eugen Ehrlich lived in the late 19th century and early 20th century, he worked in a region, Bukovina, which was a symbol of diversity. Thus, Ehrlich had the opportunity to consider the law in a different way than was possible in the great centers of European legal culture. His observations of the living law of the various communities that had formed in Bukovina enabled Ehrlich to develop a very particular theory of law with different categories. The work of Ehrlich offers the opportunity to harmonize legal pluralism with constitutional law. Living law and association are two central concepts in this process, but just as valuable is the distinction between legal norm and legal precept, because legal validity makes a major difference in this double dimension of law. The legal form fundamentally influences empirical law, especially in cases of conflict. However, law as an order of ordinary behavior also has validity through its effect.

4

《论实践法哲学》

On the Practical Philosophy of Law

Zheng, Yongliu

实践法哲学是一种关于法律具体存在的理论，该理论认为，由于现有法律与社会事实和案件事实之间的不对称，现行法律需要以其适用为反思方式来不断发展，这是从法律1.0版本到法律2.0版本转变的必然过程。之所以与其他法哲学有所区别，正在于实践法哲学建立在实践哲学的生成性思维的基础之上。

Practical philosophy of law is a theory about concrete existence of law which holds that due to the asymmetry between existing law and social facts and case facts, the existing law needs to be developed in a reflective manner through application and this is the inevitable process of mutation from law 1.0 to law 2.0. Practical philosophy of law is founded on the generative thinking of practical philosophy, and distinct from other philosophies of law hereof.

5

《关于金钱之本体论思考》

Überlegungen zum ontischen Status des Geldes

Schmitz, Heinz-Gerd

从柏拉图到马克思，单纯谈论金钱而不厌恶金钱的哲学家屈指可数。当然，经济学家们正在避免这种态度。但是他们只提供了功能性的定义，而并未提及关于金钱本质的蛛丝马迹。本文试图通过将金钱描述成一种由我们的符号学活动所创造的“ens ficitivum”来澄清这一点，对此，查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯（Charles Sanders Peirce）已经进行了分析。因此，本文认为：金钱本质上是一个标志，它表明一个人目前有能力处理未来的事件。

Ranging from Plato to Marx, one can only find a few philosophers who have talked about money without detesting it. Naturally, economists are avoiding such an attitude. But they deliver only functional definitions, nothing which could give a hint at the essence of money. The essay tries to clarify it by delineating a currency as an‘ens ficitivum’–created by our semiotic activities, which have been analysed by Charles Sanders Peirce. So, the thesis is: Money is basically a sign indicating at a present time one’s ability to handle future events.

6

《如何（不）为自然科学与法律的关系作论证》

How (not) to argue for the Relation between Natural Sciences and Law

Kirchmair, Lando

先天的普遍道德语法（UMG）论题依赖于与语言学层面上人类语言机能的普遍语法论题的类比。约翰·米哈伊尔（John Mikhail）和其他人对这种机能作出总结，认为我们人类有一种天生的道德语法。在这篇文章中，这个引人入胜的论题将与它所基于的各个领域的批判角度及批评并置。然而在自然科学的相关领域内可能还有进一步研究的空间，由此揭示出的不安全性禁止将UMG用于法律，但Mikhail实际上建议这样做。因此，本文的核心论点是，必须拒绝米哈伊尔所主张的UMG对法律的相关性，例如，（借助UMG）在识别习惯国际（刑）法或一般法律原则时向法官提供建议。为了加强这一论点，我简要地阐述了“是/应该”的争论，然后针对理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）提出的“自私基因”进行了一次思想实验，以便更一般化地方式处理自然科学和法律之间的关系。

The thesis of an innate Universal Moral Grammar (‘UMG’) relies upon an analogy to the thesis of a universal grammar of the human faculty of language in linguistics. Drawing upon this faculty, John Mikhail, among others, argues that we humans have an inborn moral grammar. In this article this fascinating thesis is juxtaposed with critical perspectives and criticism from the various fields on which it is based. While there might be room for further research within the relevant fields in the natural sciences, the insecurities thus revealed forbid the use of UMG for law, something Mikhail actually suggested doing. Thus, the core argument of this article is that the relevance of UMG for law as claimed by Mikhail, for instance, to advise judges when identifying customary international (criminal) law or general principles of law, has to be rejected. To strengthen this argument I briefly elaborate on the is/ought debate and then engage in a thought experiment on Richard Dawkins’‘selfish gene’in order to address the relationship between natural sciences and law in more general terms as well.

7

《公平价格理论来自<优士丁尼法典>4.44.2和4.44.8》

Die Theorie des gerechten Preises im Lichte von Codex Iustinianus 4.44.2 und 4.44.8

Córdoba, Michael Oliva

公平价格理论通常被假定为拥有三种渊源：古希腊的政治哲学、中世纪全盛时期的学术伦理观，以及古典时代晚期罗马法上的义务。一种细致的检验能够支持前两种想法，然而最后一种假定看起来毫无根据。本文指出，被习以为常地呈现为支持此项假定的证据——罗马皇帝戴克里先（Diocletian）的两项法令，也即是《优士丁尼法典》（Codex Iustinianus）4.44.2和4.44.8——最终另有所指。通过关于此法令的分析与替代解读，能够获得使之与“罗马法的自由主义精神”相契合的融贯解释。此外，它也解释了为何从法哲学与社会哲学的角度看，罗马法未向价格管制机构引介道德面向这一事实表明的是对罗马法的赞同而非反对。

The theory of the just price is commonly assumed to have three sources: Political philosophy of Greek antiquity, scholastic ethics of the High Middle Ages, and the Roman law of obligations of late antiquity. While closer inspection confirms this holds for the first two worlds of thought the latter assumption seems ultimately unfounded. The paper claims that the evidence notoriously presented on behalf of that assumption–two rescripts attributed to Roman emperor Diocletian, namely Codex Iustinianus 4.44.2 and 4.44.8–ultimately points in another direction. Offering both an analysis and an alternative reading of the rescripts an integrated interpretation is given that reconciles them with the “liberalistic spirit of Roman law”. Also, it is explained why, from the point of view of legal and social philosophy, the fact that Roman law refrains from introducing a moral aspect to the institute of price fixing speaks in favour of Roman law rather than against it.

二

书评

1.Gröschner, Rolf评Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer/Benno Zabel (Hrsg.)的《共和国哲学》（Philosophie der Republik）;

2.von der Pfordten, Dietmar评

Julian Nida-Rümelin的《人文主义反思》（Humanistische Reflexionen）;

3.Hirscheider, Senta

评Matthias Mahlmann的《抵抗的正义：对民主、宪法国家和人权的攻击以及法律的社会理论》 （Widerständige Gerechtigkeit. Der Angriff auf Demokratie, Verfassungsstaat und Menschenrechte und die Gesellschaftstheorie des Rechts）;

4.Hellmich, Wolfgang评Jens Hacke的《民主的生存危机：两次世界大战期间的自由主义政治理论》（Fxistenzkrise der Demokratie. Zur politischen Theorie des Liberalismus in der Zwischenkriegszeit）;

5.Bäcker Carsten 评G. Herzig / M. Klamert / R. Palmstorfer / R. Puff e.a. (Hrsg) 的《欧洲法与法理论》（Europarecht und Rechtstheorie）.

《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。

法律思想｜中国政法大学法理学研究所