認真看待脈絡－對法理學新典範的一些思考

Taking Context Seriously-Some Thoughts about the New Paradigms of Jurisprudence

顏厥安(Chueh-an YEN)

分析法理學 ； 法實證主義 ； 分離心態 ； 脈絡 ； 社會法理學 ； 觀點 ； 社會規則 ； J. L. 奧斯丁 ； 維根斯坦 ； 概念的縫隙性 ； 展演性言詞 ； Analytical Jurisprudence ； Legal Positivism ； Separation Mentality ； Context ； Social Jurisprudence ； Point of View ； Social Rule ； J. L. Austin ； Wittgenstein ； Porosität der Begriffe ； Performative Utterances

哲學與文化

49卷2期（2022 / 02 / 01）

5 - 28

繁體中文

法理學並不容易發展出新典範。本文嘗試透過英語分析法理學從Austin到哈特的分離心態，來反思這個典範變遷問題。首先說明了Alexy對法哲學的兩種研究典範，廣褒理想與限縮準則。繼而檢討闡述了英美法理學分離心態的出現，分析法實證主義理論的限縮化，以及哈特自身理論的變遷。哈特終究仍以一種分離心態的觀點，區隔分離了法理學與政治哲學的內在關聯，也在分析哲學方面，選擇了J. L.奧斯丁，而非維根斯坦對脈絡的理解方式，繼而完全捨棄了社會法理學的研究方法。此一選擇深刻地影響塑造了過去半個多世紀英語世界法理學的發展風貌。然而為哈特所放棄的另外一種理論方向也藉由其他學者在過往三十年有了新的成長發展。如今新的典範已經呈現出一種「反分離心態」的廣褒面貌。本文對此也提供了兩個議題點的討論。

It is not an easy job for jurisprudence to develop a new paradigm. In this paper I will try to make some reflections on the paradigm change of jurisprudence through examining the separation mentality of Anglo-phone analytical jurisprudence from Austin to Hart. Based on Alexy's distinction of the paradigm of legal philosophy, comprehensive ideal and restrictive maxim, I am going to discuss the emergence of separation mentality in analytical jurisprudence, the restrictive ambit of analytical legal positivism, and the development of Hart's theory. With separation mentality, Hart ultimately decided to isolate legal philosophy from political philosophy, accept J. L. Austin's rather than Wittgenstein's understanding of context, and abandon the research method of social jurisprudence completely. This choice had a great impact on Anglo-phone jurisprudence in the past half century. Nevertheless, the social jurisprudential approach abandoned by Hart also found its way out to flourish by other non-analytical minded scholars in the past few decades. Now we already have seen an ＂anti-separation mentality＂ paradigm of jurisprudence growing up. I also discuss two issues regarding this development briefly.

1. 顏厥安,王照宇(2003)。由國際學術發展趨勢探討台灣法理學之研究發展。台大法學論叢，32(4)，1-75。
   連結：
2. Agamben, Giorgio(1998).Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
3. Arendt, Hannah(1973).The Origins of Totalitarianism.New York:Harcourt Brace & Company.
4. Austin, J. L.(1962).How to Do Things with Words.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
5. Austin, John(1954).The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and the Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence.London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
6. Brugger, Winfried(Hg.),Neumann, Ulfrid(Hg.),Kirste, Stephan(Hg.)(2013).Rechtsphilosophie im 21. Jahrhundert.Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.
7. Cotterrell, Roger(2006).Law, Culture and Society. Legal Ideas in the Mirror of Social Theory.Aldershot:Ashgate.
8. Dickson, Julie(2015).Ours is a Broad Church: Indirectly Evaluative Legal Philosophy as a Facet of Jurisprudential Inquiry.Jurisprudence,6(2),207-230.
9. Dworkin, Ronald(1986).Law’s Empire.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
10. Dworkin, Ronald(1977).Taking Rights Seriously.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
11. Gardner, John(2001).Legal Positivism: 5 1/2 Myths.American Journal of Jurisprudence,46,199-228.
12. Gardner, John(2012).Law as a Leap of Faith: Essays on Law in General.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
13. Green, Leslie,Adams, Thomas(2019).Legal Positivism.The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
14. Hart, H. L. A.(1982).Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Philosophy.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
15. Hart, H. L. A.(1983).Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
16. Hart, H. L. A.(1994).The Concept of Law.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
17. Hart, H. L. A.(1958).Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.Harvard Law Review,71(4),593-629.
18. Hart, H. L. A.(1957).Analytical Jurisprudence in Mid-Twentieth Century: Reply to Professor Bodenheimer.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,105(7),953-975.
19. Hart, H. L. A.,Honoré, T.(1985).Causation in the Law.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
20. Hegel, G. W. F.(1986).Phänomenologie des Geistes Bänden.Frankfurt am Main:Suhrkamp.
21. Hutchinson, Allan C.(2018).The Debate That Never Should Have Been: Dworkin, Hart, and the Analytical Project.U. B. C. Law Review,51(3),801-828.
22. Lacey, Nicola(2004).A Life of H. L. A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
23. Lacey, Nicola(2006).Analytical Jurisprudence Versus Descriptive Sociology Revisited.Texas Law Review,84(4),944-982.
24. Marmor, Andrei(Ed.)(2012).The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law.New York:Routledge.
25. Pattaro, Enrico(Ed.),Roversi, Corrado(Ed.)(2016).Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Civil Law World.Heidelberg:Springer.
26. Postema, Gerald J.(2015).Jurisprudence, the Sociable Science.Virginia Law Review,101(4),869-902.
27. Postema, Gerald J.(2011).Legal Philosophy in the Twentieth Century: The Common Law World.Dordrecht:Springer.
28. Priel, Dan(2015).Toward Classical Legal Positivism.Virginia Law Review,101(4),987-1022.
29. Raz, Joseph(1993).H. L. A. Hart (1907-1992).Utilitas,5(2),145-156.
30. Raz, Joseph(1980).The Concept of a Legal System.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
31. Redondo, María Cristina(2014).Some Remarks on the Connection between Law and Morality.Law and Philosophy,33(6),773-793.
32. Rodriguez-Blanco, Veronica,Zambrano, Pilar(2018).One Myth of the Classical Natural Law Theory: Reflecting on the ‘Thin’ View of Legal Positivism.Ratio Juris,31(1),9-32.
33. Sugarman, David,Hart, H. L. A.(2005).Hart Interviewed: H. L. A. Hart in Conversation with David Sugarman.Journal of Law and Society,32(2),267-293.
34. Tasioulas. John (Ed.)(2020).The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Law.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
35. Twining, William(2009).General Jurisprudence. Understanding Law from a Global Perspective.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
36. Wittgenstein, L.,Anscombe, G. E. M.(Trans.),Hacker, P. M. S.(Trans.),Schulte, Joachim(Trans.)(2009).Philosophical Investigations.West Sussex:Blackwell Publishing.
37. 哈特,許家馨（譯）,李冠宜（譯）(2010).法律的概念.臺北:商周出版公司.
38. 黑格爾,賀麟（譯）,王玖興（譯）(1981).精神現象學（上卷）.北京:商務印書館.
39. 顏厥安(1993)。法與道德——由一個法哲學的核心問題檢討德國戰後法思想的發展。政大法學評論，47，1-30。
40. 顏厥安(1998).法與實踐理性.臺北:允晨出版公司.
41. 顏厥安(2004)。規範、論證與行動——法認識論論文集，臺北:
42. 顏厥安(1995)。法概念與實踐理性——德國法理學近年發展之介紹。月旦法學，3，24-34。