程序主義與反思（身）法典範之爭：從哈伯馬斯對韋伯法理論之批判談起

Disputes over Proceduralist and Reflexive Paradigms of Law-Analysis of Habermas's Critique of Weber's Legal Theory

10.7015/JEAS.201203.0083

李俊增(Chiun-Tseng Lee)

形式法律 ； 實質法律 ； 反思（身）法律 ； 程序主義法典範 ； 社會法 ； formal law ； deformalized law ； reflexive law ； proceduralist paradigm ； social law

歐美研究

42卷1期（2012 / 03 / 01）

83 - 165

繁體中文

在《經濟與社會》乙書中，韋伯討論現代法律隨著社會理性化出現之形式性質，並強烈質疑福利國家出現導致之法律的實質化。韋伯此一有關形式法律與實質法律之原創性的分析引發了此後數十年的論戰。面對福利國家法律實質化產生之問題，法律社會學家屠布涅亦從系統論之觀點，提出反思（身）法之法律形式，企圖以之取代實質法律。哈伯馬斯則提出程序主義法典範，希望能有效解決其中之論爭。本文從哈伯馬斯對於韋伯法社會學之詮釋、批判與回應為起點，進一步以程序主義法典範為中心，來探討程序主義與反思（身）法典範之論爭。

With the emergence and development of the modern welfare state, classical liberal conceptions of the legal norm have been undermined to a great extent. This trend has provoked a heated debate between sociologists, political scientists and legal scholars. Since publication, Max Weber's famous discussion of antiformal tendencies in modern law, in Economy and Society, has defined the terms of the debate over welfare state law. In response to the problems resulting from the law's materialization, G. Teubner proposes a reflexive law model. J. Habermas offers his proceduralist paradigm of law and hopes it will satisfactorially answer the debates between the liberal, social-welfare and reflexive models. This paper hopes to show that Habermas's paradigm proves to be a creative force while raising some questions.

1. Chen, C.(2007).The new legal paradigm of Jean Cohen and its implication for public online dispute resolution.EurAmerica,37(4),513-533.
   連結：
2. 李俊增(2004)。多元分歧與正當性：對Habermas程序主義法理論之檢證。政治與社會哲學評論，11，83-127。
   連結：
3. 李俊增(2009)。法律、規訓與治理—現代權力關係中之法律形式。政治與社會哲學評論，30，1-59。
   連結：
4. 洪鎌德(2002)。從反思法到自生法—屠布涅法律社會學之解析。問題與研究，41(3)，1-43。
   連結：
5. 顏厥安(2001)。溝通、制度與民主文化—由哈伯馬斯的法理論初探社會立憲主義。台大法學論叢，30(3)，1-48。
   連結：
6. Arato, A.(1998).Procedural law and civil society: Interpreting the radical democratic paradigm.Habermas on law and democracy: Critical exchanges,Berkeley, CA:
7. Black, J.(1996).Constitutionalizing self-regulation.The Modern Law Review,59(1),24-55.
8. Blankenburg, E.(1984).The poverty of evolutionism: A critique of Teubner's case for "reflexive law".Law & Society Review,18(2),273-290.
9. Bohman, J.(1994).Complexity, pluralism and the constitutional state: On Habermas's faktizität und geltung.Law & Society Review,28(4),897-930.
10. Cohen, J. L.(2002).Regulating intimacy: A new legal paradigm.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
11. Cohen, J. L.,Arato, A.(1994).Civil society and poltical theory.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
12. Deflem, M.(1996).Introduction: Law in Habermas's theory of communicative action.Habermas, modernity and law,London:
13. Eder, K.(2002).Critique of Habermas's contribution to the sociology of law.Jürgen Habermas,London:
14. Fitzpatrick, P.(2001).Abiding the world: Globalism and the lex mercatoria.Law's new boundaries: The consequences of legal autopoiesis,Aldershot:
15. Guibentif, P.(1996).Approaching the production of law through Habermas's concept of communicative action.Habermas, modernity and law,London:
16. Habermas, J.(1998).Struggles for recognition in the democratic constitutional state.The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory,Cambridge, MA:
17. Habermas, J.(1988).Law and morality.The Tanner lectures on human values,Salt Lake City, UT:
18. Habermas, J.(1996).Between facts and norms: Contribution to a discourse theory of law and democracy.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
19. Habermas, J.(2001).Constitutional democracy: A paradoxical union of contradictory principles?.Political Theory,29(6),766-781.
20. Habermas, J.(1989).The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquire into a category of bourgeois society.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
21. Habermas, J.(1984).The theory of communicative action.Boston:Beacon Press.
22. Habermas, J.(1987).The theory of communicative action.Boston:Beacon Press.
23. Habermas, J.(1979).Communication and the evolution of society.Boston:Beacon.
24. Luhmann, N.(1992).Some problems with "reflexive Law".State, law and economy as autopoietic systems,Milan:
25. McCormick, J. P.(2007).Weber, Habermas, and transformation of the European State: Constitutional, social, and supranational democracy.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
26. Orts, E. W.(2001).Autopoiesis and the natural environment.Law's new boundaries: The consequences of legal autopoiesis,Aldershot:
27. Rasmussen, D. M.(2002).How is valid law possible?: A review of between facts and norms by J. Habermas.Jürgen Habermas,London:
28. Rehg, W.(1996).Translator's introduction.Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy,Cambridge, MA:
29. Rogowski, R.(2001).The concept of reflexive labor law: Its theoretical background and possible applications.Law's new boundaries: The consequences of legal autopoiesis,Aldershot:
30. Rogowski, R.(Ed.),Wilthagen, T.(Ed.)(1994).Reflexive labour law: Studies in industrial relations and employment regulation.Deventer:Kluwer Law and Taxation.
31. Scheuerman, W. E.(2008).Neumann v. Habermas: The Frankfurt school and the case of the rule of law.Frankfurt school perspectives on globalization, democracy and the law,New York:
32. Scheuerman, W. E.(1994).Between norm and the exception: The Frankfurt school and the rule of law.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
33. Scheuerman, W. E.(2004).Liberal democracy and the social acceleration of time.Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.
34. Scheuerman, W. E.(2008).Prospects and perile of proceduralist law.Frankfurt school perspectives on globalization, democracy and the law,New York:
35. Smismans, S.(2005).Reflexive law in support of directly deliberative polyarchy: Reflexive-deliberative polyarchy as a normative frame for the OMC.Social rights and market forces: Is the open coordination of employment and social polices the future of social Europe,Brussels, Belgium:
36. Teubner, G.(1987).Juridification-Concepts, aspects, limits, solutions.Juridification of social spheres: A comparative analysis in areas of labor, corporate, antitrust and social welfare law,Berlin:
37. Teubner, G.(1983).Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law.Law & Society Review,17(2),239-285.
38. Teubner, G.(1992).The two faces of Janus: Rethinking legal pluralism.Cardozo Law Review,13(5),1443-1462.
39. Teubner, G.(1998).De collisione discursuum: Communicative rationalities in law, morality and politics.Habermas on law and democracy: Critical exchanges,Berkeley, CA:
40. Teubner, G.(1993).Law as an autopoietic system.Oxford:Blackwell.
41. Teubner, G.(1986).After legal instrumentalism? Strategic models of post-regulatory law.Dilemmas of law in the welfare state,Berlin:
42. Willke, H.(1986).Three types of legal structure: The conditional, the purposive and the relational program.Dilemmas of law in the welfare state,Berlin:
43. 李俊增(2007)。對哈伯馬斯論辯倫理學中普遍化原則之證立的檢證—兼論此項原則之有效性的限度。現代性的政治反思，台北=Taipei:
44. 林佳和(2005)。台北=Taipei，台灣大學法律研究所=College of Law, National Taiwan University。
45. 林遠澤(2010)。論哈伯馬斯溝通理性建築學的法權定位。溝通、批判和實踐—哈伯馬斯八十論集，台北=Taipei:
46. 張桐銳(2002)。合作國家。當代公法新論（中）—翁岳生教授七秩誕辰祝壽論文集，台北=Taipei:
47. 黃瑞祺(1998)。理性討論與民主：哈伯馬斯之溝通理論的民主涵義。多元主義，台北=Taipei:

1. (2015)。論違憲審查之程序理性—從Dworkin獨白取向之裁判理論到Habermas之司法法律論辯理論。中研院法學期刊，16，127-209。
2. (2022)。法律與現代性。政大法學評論，特刊，179-223。
3. (2024)。論哈伯瑪斯道德與法律之間的關係—以法律與民主法治國論辯理論為核心。中研院法學期刊，34，153-218。