| 自从美公法学实际主义者扛起司法不肯定性的年夜旗,它就成了司法实际的一个争辩成绩。分歧的学派有分歧的不雅点一些法律家以为司法是肯定的,而且一切的司法成绩都有一个谜底,一个独一准确的谜底,然则,在美国鼓起的批评司法研究活动以为司法是完全不肯定的。他们的不雅点就是司法资料本身常常不克不及决议,或许说,很少或历来未定定司法争议的成果。这些法律家以为司法的不肯定性经常以说话的性质为基本或许以司法推理中说话的运作措施为基本。究竟司法是肯定的照样不肯定的呢?霍尔姆斯、哈特、德沃金分离从哲学办法,语义学办法和认知办法这三个角度议论了司法不肯定性。依据葛洪义传授和沈敏荣传授对司法不肯定性的分类,我们可以从司法渊源,司法概念,司法规矩,司法推理,司法说明等方面临司法不肯定行停止研究。我们可以把一切的这些不肯定性归结为立法的不肯定性和司法的不肯定性。哲学身分,认知身分,特殊是说话的身分都可以招致立法的不肯定性。依据蒂莫·恩迪科特,说话不肯定性包含隐约,不准确,不完全,争议性,家族类似性,语用隐约,歧义等。隐约是说话惹起司法不肯定性的缘由之一。是以,经由过程对峙法说话中隐约分类中的归纳综合性辞汇,更改型隐约限制语和情绪辞汇的运用的剖析,本文终究论证了说话的不肯定性在立法说话中是如何表现为司法不肯定性。最初,经由过程对峙法说话中说话不肯定性的研究,我们得出的结论是准确选词对峙法说话极其主要。但是,因为社会生涯的庞杂性和多样性,和说话自己的缺点,不管在立法说话中运用何等准确的词语,司法都不克不及达到立法者所希冀的那样详细和精确。是以,在立法说话中,一些不肯定性词语常常被用来扩展司法概念来填补司法的缺点。换言之,运用不肯定性的词语是立法说话的又一主要特点。 Abstract: Since the legal realists take judicial uncertainty of the standard, a result argue it became the judicial practice. Different school has different indecent point some jurists think that justice is in the affirmative, and judicial records all have an answer, a single "right answer. However, in the United States to muster the criticism of justice research activities thought justice is not completely sure. Their point of view is the judicial information itself often cannot decide, perhaps say, has little or not determine the judicial dispute results. These jurists think judicial uncertainty often speak of the nature of the basic perhaps to judicial reasoning talk operation method as the basic. What justice is sure still not sure? Holmes, Hart and Dworkin separated from philosophy, the three aspects of semantics and cognitive measures about the judicial measures of uncertainty. According to Professor Ge Hongyi and Professor Shen Minrong of the judicial uncertainty classification, we can from the origin, concept of justice, judicial rules, judicial reasoning, judicial explanation and judicial uncertainty research for face. We can put all the uncertainty attributed to the uncertainty of the legislative and judicial uncertainty. The philosophy of identity, cognitive status, special is not sure to identity can bring about legislation. According to Timo Endicott, do not speak certainly contains vaguely, inaccurate, incomplete, controversial, family resemblance, pragmatic ambiguity is faint, etc.. Speak vaguely is not sure why one of the cause of justice. Is the confrontation via the process of law talk vaguely classified summary of speech sinks, change type ambiguously restricted language and emotional vocabulary application analysis, this paper finally demonstrates the speak not sure in legislative language is how the performance of judicial uncertainty. Initially, through confrontation process talk talk uncertainty research, we come to the conclusion is accurate diction confrontation talk is extremely important. However, because of the complexity of social life and diversity, and speak their own shortcomings, no matter how to speak in the legislative application of accurate words, justice cannot achieve the legislators hoped a detailed and accurate. To speak in the legislation, some positive words are often used to extend the concept to fill the shortcomings of judicial justice. In other words, use positive words is a main characteristic of the legislative talk. 目录: Acknowledgements 4-5 Abstract 5-6 摘要 7-10 Chapter One Introduction 10-14 1.1 Rationale of the research 10-12 1.2 Aim of the research 12 1.3 Arrangement of the thesis 12-14 Chapter Two Indeterminacy of Law 14-37 2.1 Indeterminacy of law 14-16 2.1.1 Definition of word “indeterminacy” 14-15 2.1.2 Definition of indeterminacy of law 15-16 2.2 Theories related to indeterminacy of law 16-25 2.2.1 Studies of indeterminacy of law abroad 16-24 2.2.1.1 Philosophical approach to indeterminacy of law 17-18 2.2.1.2 Semantic approach to indeterminacy of law 18-21 2.2.1.3 Epistemic approach to indeterminacy of law 21-24 2.2.2 Studies of indeterminacy of law at home 24-25 2.3 Categories of indeterminacy of law 25-33 2.3.1 Indeterminacy in legislation 26-31 2.3.1.1 Indeterminacy of legal sources 26-28 2.3.1.2 Indeterminacy of legal concepts 28-30 2.3.1.3 Indeterminacy of legal rules 30-31 2.3.2 Indeterminacy in judicial process 31-33 2.3.2.1 Indeterminacy of legal interpretation 32 2.3.2.2 Indeterminacy of legal reasoning 32-33 2.4 Causes for indeterminacy in legislation 33-37 2.4.1 Philosophical factor 33-35 2.4.2 Linguistic factor 35 2.4.3 Cognitive factor 35-37 Chapter Three Vagueness 37-46 3.1 Relationship between law and language 37-38 3.2 Definition of vagueness 38-40 3.3 Vagueness as one source of linguistic indeterminacy 40-41 3.3.1 Linguistic indeterminacy 40-41 3.3.2 Sources of linguistic indeterminacy 41 3.4 Vagueness and other related concepts 41-43 3.4.1 Vagueness vs. inaccuracy 41-42 3.4.2 Vagueness vs. imprecision 42 3.4.3 Vagueness vs. ambiguity 42-43 3.5 Classification of vagueness 43-46 Chapter Four Vagueness in Legislative Language 46-58 4.1 How vagueness is reflected in legislative language 46-55 4.1.1 Vagueness caused by the use of general words 46-49 4.1.2 Vagueness caused by approximators 49-53 4.1.2.1 Adaptors 49-51 4.1.2.2 Rounders 51-53 4.1.3 Vagueness caused by the use of emotive words 53-55 4.2 Vagueness and its effect on indeterminacy of law 55-56 4.3 Determinacy and indeterminacy 56-58 Chapter Five Conclusion 58-60 5.1 Summary of the present study 58-59 5.2 Suggestions for further research 59-60 Bibliography 60-64 |
