誰的觀點？誰的法律？對Hart的法律理論的批判

Whose Viewpoint? Whose Law? -A Critique of Hart's Legal Theory

劉臺強(Tai-Chiang Liu)

內在觀點 ； 外在觀點 ； 參與者 ； 觀察者 ； 詮釋學 ； 批判反思的態度 ； 實證性的道德 ； 批判性的道德 ； 法律的功能 ； 社會化的觀點 ； 審慎精明的觀點 ； 公民不服從 ； 規則 ； 原則 ； 描述性的社會學 ； external point of view ； internal point of view ； participant ； observer ； hermeneutics ； critical reflective attitude ； positive morality, critical morality ； function of law ； socialized point of view ； prudential point of view ； civil disobedience ； rule ； principle ； descriptive sociology

東吳法律學報

26卷1期（2014 / 07 / 01）

137 - 188

繁體中文

本文考察英國法理學家Hart關於人們面對社會規則時所抱持的外在觀點與內在觀點的區分。一般而言，前者是觀察者的觀點；後者則是參與者的觀點。然而，Hart的前述區分卻是含混與誤導的。一方面，根據Hart的見解，內在觀點指的是接受社會規則者所抱持的批判反思的態度。但是此種理解之下的內在觀點，卻是被窄化之後的社會化的觀點，同時也排除另外兩種不同類型的參與者觀點：Holmes意義之下的bad man觀點，以及異議者，特別是在公民不服從事例中的異議者。另一方面，Hart區分了外在觀點與極端的外在觀點。Hart認為抱持極端外在觀點的觀察者並不接受規則，只有當他們判斷違反規則的行為將會伴隨著不愉快後果時才會關心社會規則。但是極端的外在觀點很明顯的是參與者的觀點，亦即bad man的觀點。造成Hart這些誤解的原因是他關於法律之功能的規範性判斷，以及他關於法律的本體論預設。

This essay scrutinizes Hart's well-known distinction between external and internal point of view of people toward the social rules. General speaking, the former is the observer's viewpoint, while the latter is the participant's viewpoint. Nevertheless, Hart's distinction is ambiguous and misleading. On the one hand, the internal point of view, according to Hart, refers to the critical reflective attitude of the participants who accept the social rules. However the conception of internal point of view is narrowed to the socialized point of view, it excludes other two kinds of participant's viewpoint: the bad man's (Holmes's version) and the dissenter's, especially in the cases of civil disobedience. On the other hand, Hart distinguished the external from the extreme external point of view. In Hart's opinion, the observers keeping the extreme external point of view do not accept the social rules and are only concerned with them when and because they judge that unpleasant consequences are likely to follow deviation. The extreme external point of view is clearly the participant's viewpoint, namely the bad man's viewpoint. What caused Hart's misunderstanding are his normative judgment about law's function and his ontological assumption about law.

1. 莊世同(2002)。法律的規範性與法律的接受。政治與社會哲學評論，創刊號，43-84。
   連結：
2. Kelsen, Hans, General Theory of Law and State, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, U. S. A. (1945)
3. (2000).Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.London, U. K.:Routledge.
4. Holmes, Oliver W.: The Path of the Law, 10 Har L. Rev . 457 (1897)
5. Holmes , Oliver W., Collected Legal Papers, Harcourt, Brace And Company, New York , U. S. A. (1920)
6. Albert, Hans(1980).Traktat über kritische Vernunft.
7. Alexy, Robert(1994).Begriff und Geltung des Rechts.
8. Arendt, Hannah、施奕如譯(2013)。平凡的邪惡：艾希曼耶路撒冷大審紀實。台北:玉山社。
9. Aristotle(1984).Politics.Princeton, U.S.A.:Princeton University Press.
10. Austin, John(1998).The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and The Use of The Study of Jurisprudence.Indianapolis, U. S. A.:Hackett Publishing Company.
11. Bentham , Jeremy(1977).A Fragment On Government.Cambridge, U. K.:Cambridge University Press.
12. Bentham , Jeremy(1970).Of Laws In General.London , U. K.:The Athlone Press.
13. Black, Donald(1976).The Behavior Of Law.New York, U. S. A.:Academic Press.
14. Bleicher, Josef(1980).Contemporary Hermeneutics.Boston, U. S. A.:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
15. Burton, Steven J.(ed.)(2000).The Path of The Law and Its Influence.Cambridge, U. K.:Cambridge University Press.
16. Cane, Peter(ed.)(2010).The Hart-Fuller Debate In The Twenty-First Century.Oxford, U. K.:Hart Publising.
17. Chalmers, A. F.(1999).What Is This Thing Called Science?.Indianapolis, U. S. A.:Hackett Publishing Company.
18. Cohen, Marshall(ed.)(1984).Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence.London, U. K.:Duckworth.
19. Coleman, Jules(ed.)(2001).Hart's Postscript: Essays On The Postscript to The Concept of Law.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
20. Dahl, Robert A.(2006).On Political Equality.New Haven, U. S. A.:Yale University Press.
21. Dickson, Julie(2001).Evaluation and Legal Theory.Oxford, U. K.:Hart Publishing.
22. Dreier, Horst(1986).Rechtslehre, Staatsoziologie und Demokratietheorie bei Hans Kelsen.
23. Dreier, Ralf(1983).Widerstandsrecht und ziviler Ungehorsam im Rechtsstaat.Ziviler Ungehorsam im Rechtsstaat
24. Dworkin, Ronald(1978).Taking Rights Seriously.Massachusettes, U. S. A.:Harvard University Press.
25. Dworkin, Ronald(1986).Law's Empire.Massachusetts, U. S. A.:The Bleknap Press Of Harvard Univeerssity Presss.
26. Dworkin, Ronald(2004).Hart's Postscript and the Character of Political Philosophy.Oxford J. of Legal Studies,24,1-37.
27. Edgeworth, Brendan(1986).Legal Positivism and the Philosophy of Language: A Critique of H. L. A. Hart's "Descriptive Sociology".Legal Studies,6,115-139.
28. Edwards, Michael(2009).Civil Society.Cambridge, U. K.:Polity.
29. Eekelaar, John(2002).Judges and Citizens: Two Conceptions of Law.Oxford J. of Legal Studies,22,497-516.
30. Frankenberg, Günther(1984).Ziviler Ungehorsam und rechtsstaatliche Demokratie.JZ,39,266-275.
31. Fuller, Lon L.(1969).The Morality of Law.New Haven, U. S. A.:Yale University Press.
32. Gadamer, Hans-Georg(1986).Hermeneutik.
33. Gavison, Ruth(ed.)(1987).Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy: The Influence of H. L. A. Hart,New York, U. S. A.:
34. Giudice, Michael(2005).Ways of Understanding Diversity among Theories of Law.Law and Philosophy,24,509-545.
35. Goldworthy, Jeffery D.(1990).The Self-Destruction of Legal Positivism.Oxford J. of Legal Studies,10,449-486.
36. Gray, Christopher(ed.)(1999).The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia.New York, U. S. A.:Garland Publishing.
37. Guest, Stephen(ed.)(1996).Positivism Today.AldershoT, U. K.:Dartmouth Publishhiing Company.
38. Habermas, Jürgen(1983).Ziviler Ungehorsam-Testfall für den demokratischen Rechtsstaat. Wider den autoritären Legalismus in der Bundesrepublik.Ziviler Ungehorsam im Rechtsstaat
39. Hacker, P. M. S(ed.),Raz, Joseph(ed.)(1977).Law, Morality, and Society: Essays in Honour of H. L. A. Hart,Oxford, U. K.:
40. Harris, J. W.(1979).Law and Legal Science.Oxford, U. K.:Oxford University Press.
41. Hart, H. L. A.(1994).The Concept of Law.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
42. Hart, H. L. A.(1983).Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
43. Hart, H. L. A.(1982).Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
44. Hart, H. L. A.(1963).Law, Liberty, and Morality.Stanford, U. S. A.:Stanford University Press.
45. Hart, H.L.A.、許家馨譯、李冠宜譯(2000)。法律的概念。台北:商周。
46. Hoerster, Norbert(1986).Zur Verteidigung des Rechtspositivismus.NJW,2481.
47. Jørgensen, Stig(2000).Faces of Truth.Aarhuuss, Denmark:Aarhus University Press.
48. Kelsen, Hans(1960).Reine Rechtslehre.
49. King, Martin Luther(1964).Why We Can't Wait.New York, U. S. A.:Signet Books.
50. Locke, John(1988).Two Treatises of Government.Cambridge, U. K.:Cambridge University Press.
51. Loughlin, Martin(2000).Sword and Scales: An Examination of The Relationship Between Law and Politics.London, U. K.:Hart Publishing.
52. Maccormick, Neil(1981).H. L. A. Hart.Stanford, U. S. A.:Stanford Universityy Press.
53. Maccormick, Neil(1978).Legal Reasonong and Legal Theory.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
54. Maccormick, Neil,Weinberger, Ota(1986).An Insitutional Theory of Law: New Approaches To Legal Positivism.Dordrecht, Holland:D. Reidel Publishing Company.
55. Maravall, José María(ed.),Przeworski, Adam(ed.)(2003).Democracy and The Rule of Law.Cambridge, U. K.:Cambridge University Press.
56. Marmor, Andrei(ed.)(1995).Law and Interpretation: Essays in Legal Philosophy.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
57. Mill, John Stuart(1978).On Liberty.Indianapolis, U. S. A.:Hackett Publishing Company.
58. Minda, Gary(1995).Postmodern Legal Movement.New York, U. S. A.:New York University Press.
59. Montesquieu、張雁深譯(1998)。論法律的精神。台北:台灣商務印書館。
60. Morison, W. L.(1958).Some Myth about Positivism.YALE L. J.,68,212-233.
61. Patterson, Dennis(ed.)(1996).A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory.Massachusetts, U. S. A.:Blackwell Publisherrss Ltd.
62. Paulson, Stanley L.(ed.),Paulson, Bonnie L.(ed.)(1998).Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectiives on Kelseniaan Themes.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
63. Popper, Karl(1959).The Logic of Scientific Discovery.New York, U. S. A.:Basic Books.
64. Posner, Richard A.(1995).Overcoming Law.Massachusetts, U. S. A.:Harvard University Press.
65. Rawls, John(1999).A Theory of Justice.Massachusetts, U. S. A.:Harvard University Press.
66. Raz, Joseph(1979).The Authority of Law.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
67. Raz, Joseph(1995).Ethics in The Public Domain.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
68. Raz, Joseph(1999).Practical Reason and Norms.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
69. Raz, Joseph(1998).Postema on Law's Autonomy and Public Reasons: A Critical Comment.LEGAL THEORY,4,1-20.
70. Ross, Alf(1959).On Law and Justice.Berkeley, U. S. A.:University of California Press.
71. Roxin, Claus(1997).Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil.
72. Rumble, Wilfrid E.(1981).The Legal Positivism of John Austin and the Realist Movement in American Jurisprudence.Cornell L. Rev.,66,986-1031.
73. Rüther, Bernd(1999).Rechtstheorie.
74. Sachs, Albie、陳毓奇譯、陳禮工譯(2013)。斷臂上的花朵。台北:麥田。
75. Samuel, Geoffrey(2003).Epistemology and Method in Law.Hampshire, U. K.:Ashgate Publishing Limited.
76. Stelmach, Jerzy(1991).Die hermeneutische Auffassung der Rechtsphilosophie.
77. Tamanaha, Brian Z.(1997).Realistic Socio-Legal Theory: Pragmatism and A Social Theory of Law.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
78. Tamanaha, Brian Z.(2004).On The Rule of Law.New York, U. S. A.:Cambridge University Press.
79. Tamanaha, Brian Z.(2001).A General Jurisprudence of Law and Society.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
80. Tella, María José Falcón Y.(2004).Civil Disobedience and Test Cases.Ratio Juris,17,315-327.
81. Thoreau, Henry David(1980).Walden and "Civil Disobedience".New York, U. S. A.:Penguin Books.
82. Twining, William(1972).The Bad Man Revisited.Cornell L. Rev.,58,275.
83. Twining, William(2000).Globalisation and Legal Theory.London, U. K.:Butterworths.
84. Van Caenegem, R. C.(1987).Judges, Legislators and Professors.New York, U. S. A.:Cambridge University Press.
85. Waluchow, W. J.(1994).Inclusive Legal Positivism.New York, U. S. A.:Oxford University Press.
86. Watson, Alan(1981).The Making of The Civil Law.Massachusetts, U. S. A.:Harvard University Press.
87. Weber, Max(1980).Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grunriß der verstehenden Soziologie.
88. Wittgenstein, Ludwig(1963).Philosophische Untersuchungen.Blackwell.
89. Zweigert, Konrad,Kötz, Hein(1996).Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts.
90. 洪漢鼎(1995)。詮釋學和詮釋學哲學的觀念。哲學雜誌，12，130-144。
91. 張嘉尹(2012)。法律原則、法律體系與法概念論：Robert Alexy 法律原則理論初探。憲法學的新視野，台北:
92. 莊世同(2000)。Ronald Dworkin 與柔性法實證主義。月旦法學，64，54-69。
93. 許宗力(2006)。試論民主法治國家的「市民不服從」。法與國家權力，台北:
94. 管中祥編(2013)。公民不冷血：新世紀台灣公民行動事件簿。台北:紅桌文化。
95. 鄧衍森(2006)。法治與人權。台北:新學林。
96. 顏厥安(2004)。法體系的統一性與多元社會。規範、論證與行動：法認識論論文集，台北:
97. 顏厥安(1998)。法與實踐理性。台北:允晨文化。

1. 呂嘉穎(2018)。以法社會學觀點論「公民不服從」。法令月刊，69(6)，98-117。
2. 莊世同(2017)。法理學／法社會學發展專題回顧：2014-2016 年學界動態與文獻回顧。臺大法學論叢，46(S)，1561-1593。
3. (2018)。恐龍法官真的恐龍嗎？從大眾與法官的邏輯假設分析之。樹德科技大學學報，20(2)，183-202。
4. (2019)。「刁婦／民」的傳統中國「（非）法」秩序— 預測論、潛規則與淡新檔案中的姦拐故事。中研院法學期刊，2019特刊1，371-453。
5. (2020)。法律規範性理論的「無心」之過？－以哈特與拉茲之理論為核心的反思。中研院法學期刊，27，345-406。