法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
試論釋憲裁判的風格與見解(On the Styles and Views of Constitutional Adjudication)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 林依仁
出版日期: 2020.01
刊登出處: 台灣/憲政時代第 45 卷 第 2、3 期/139-224 頁
頁  數: 65 點閱次數: 853
下載點數: 260 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 林依仁
關 鍵 詞: 前案釋義學實用主義究元決疑法之獲取宣告衡量
中文摘要: 釋憲裁判為以司法權行使之憲法適用。其裁判內容與效力有闡明憲法真義、維護憲政秩序之作用,為憲法理論與實務密切注意之對象。然分析法則若何,影響探求憲法真意至深,當為憲法研究的重要支柱。作者本於後設立場,自風格觀點作為分析釋憲裁判的方法,本文以風格先於方法的命題,說明解釋憲法的本質。推論過程以型塑風格的因素和釋憲裁判究有何等特殊之風格。
為此先解釋風格之定義與裁判風格的形成因素,包括解釋制度、解釋對象、解釋依據、解釋方法與文書格式等影響因素漸次說明,得出釋憲裁判不同於學說論理,而是結合釋義與實踐風格之論斷。實踐風格非指擺脫憲法規範意義而屈從現實利益,而為結合學理釋義與實際事件之合理構成,屬於規範性憲法的法之發現活動。換言之,釋憲裁判的風格為特殊的實踐推理過程,作者定其為「釋義實踐之法」,最具獨特性的是究元決疑的風格。為佐證風格之內涵,作者以撰寫時適逢第九屆立法院通過任命之大法官在任滿第一年為例,亦即釋字第740~750號為範例,進行法律見解之形式與內涵的討論。
英文關鍵詞: PrejudiceDogmaticsPragmaticontology-based Exploration and casuistrylegal acquiringDeclaring
英文摘要: Constitutional adjudication is an application of the constitution by the exercise of judicial power. The content and validity of adjudication play a key role in clarifying the true meaning of the constitution and upholding constitutional order, which receive profound attention from researchers of constitutional theory and practice. However, analysis of the law has a significant influence on the investigation of the true meaning of the constitution and should be the very backbone of constitutional research. The author will conduct a meta-analysis on the modes of constitutional adjudication in terms of styles. This paper will explain the essence of the constitution based on a style-before-mode proposition. The inferential process, thereby, investigated the factors that shape styles and what kinds of special styles exist in constitutional adjudication.
The author will initially explain the definition of styles and the formative factors of adjudication styles, which include systems, objects, foundations, modes of interpretations, and document formats. By expounding upon these influencing factors, the author infers that constitutional adjudication combines dogmatic and pragmatic styles, which differs from legal theories. The pragmatic style does not mean ignoring constitutional normative significance and capitulating to self-interest, but rather rationally integrating theoretical interpretation with actual events, which falls under the discovery of laws in the normative constitution. In other words, this style of constitutional adjudication is a special process of pragmatic reasoning. The most unique style is emphasized in the book titled "ontology-based Exploration and casuistry." The author will cite an example from the first year of appointment of the chief justice approved by the Ninth Legislative Yuan at the time of writing, Interpretations No. 740-750, to discuss the forms and implications of legal views, and to corroborate the substance of style.
目  次: 壹、問題意識與研究方法
一、分析方法之考察
二、後設取向的風格
貳、裁判風格之形成因素
一、解釋制度之影響
二、解釋對象之影響
三、解釋依據之影響
四、解釋方法之影響
五、文書格式之影響
參、風格為實踐釋義之法
一、究元決疑之風格
二、內蘊外顯之風格
三、承先啟後之風格
四、維穩調適之風格
五、變易增補之風格
六、對立辯證之風格
肆、見解提出與釋義學
一、釋義學之功能
二、基本權內涵
三、審查客體
伍、宣告決定之務實性
一、宣告與補充
二、宣告違憲之決意裁量
三、宣告違憲之選擇裁量
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
林依仁,試論釋憲裁判的風格與見解,憲政時代,第 45 卷 第 2、3 期,139-224 頁,2020年01月。
返回功能列