English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 94188/124659 (76%)
Visitors : 29657207      Online Users : 398
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/55958

    Title: 民事裁判中的結果導向方法
    Other Titles: Consequentialistic Approach in the Decisions of Civil Cases
    Authors: 許政賢
    Contributors: 國立政治大學法律學系
    Keywords: 結果導向;結果取向;司法控制;契約自由;契約正義;典範;釋義理論;法學方法;法官造法;法律經濟分析
    consequentialism;consequentialist approach;consequentialist arguments;freedom of contract;justice of contract;paradigm;doctrine;legal method;judge-made law;economic analysis of law
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-11-26 09:38:57 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 結果導向(Folgenorientierung、consequentialistic approach,或譯為「結果取向」)的解釋方法,就是在適用法律過程中,考量因解釋結果所生社會影響,並在有數項解釋方案時,選擇對社會較有利的選項。在學術論著所常提到的利益論證、原則論證、目的論證、法安定性論證、正義論證、可行性論證及結果評價論證等,都得歸類屬於廣義結果導向的內涵。法哲學家Arthur Kaufmann 指出:結果導向法律解釋在現代論證理論中扮演顯著角色(在法院實務上當然也是如此,但大家似乎不好意思承認,它其實是4 項傳統解釋規則以外另一項同樣重要方法;大家只把門打開一半),正道破研究這一問題的高度價值。結果導向方法所以值得重視,主要理由之一在於,它有助於避免法官以其他表面形式理由掩飾,卻不願明白承認真正的理由是考量個案的社會影響性,也就是避免形成以理性上無法控管的尋法過程,作成「無節制解釋」,而掩飾個人特定想法的虛假情況。本研究擬以我國民事裁判為對象,針對裁判理由所提到因素進行檢驗,分析在何種範圍或程度內,法院縱未明確表明運用結果導向方法,但事實上係運用學理上所謂結果導向方法進行裁判,透過這項研究,將期待法院裁判理由透明化的程度得以提高,並為日後檢驗裁判合理性的理論基礎提供更完整的說明。
    The consequentialistic approach is one of the methods for legal interpretation. It indicates a specific method concerning the legal interpretation, which focuses on the aspect of social consequence due to some suggestions of the legal interpretation. If there are more than one reasonable suggestion concerning the legal interpretation, one should choose the one which favorite the society according to this approach. In the academic discussion the terms of so called benefit argumentation, principle argumentation, goal argumentation, argumentation of legal certainty, justice argumentation, availability argumentation or argumentation of consequence evaluation can be attributed to this kind of approach in the broad sense. The famous legal philosopher Arthur Kaufmann has pointed out: The consequentialistic approach has played a very obvious roll in the modern theory of legal argumentation (of course, there is no exception in the court decisions, but it seems for people to ashamed to admit that it is also one of the important methods in addition to the four traditional rules. This kind of reservation reveals just like a half-open door. The insight of Kaufmann indicates the importance of the study relating to such approach. Indeed, it based on one of the following reasons: it dedicates to prevent the risk caused by the judge to declare the reason of his decision with a disguise argumentation in stead of the real one and has no intention to admit frankly his actual concern on the social consequence. On the other hand it dedicates to avoid the process of law finding which could lead to out of control and induce in a sense of uncontrollable interpretation. In this context this study is conducted in a way in which the reason of legal decisions should be strictly examined in order to discover to which extent the court has decided the cases in the light of the consequentialistic approach, although it didn’t declare so frankly. The goal of this study is to promote the transparency of the reason of the legal decisions and provide a more persuasive model of the justification of adjudication
    Relation: 基礎研究
    研究期間:10008~ 10107
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    100-2410-H004-034.pdf445KbAdobe PDF328View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback