哈贝马斯的法律不确定性理论与审判的合理性

R. Alexy
{"title":"哈贝马斯的法律不确定性理论与审判的合理性","authors":"R. Alexy","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Every theory of legal argumentation has to determine the relation between legal certainty and correctness, which essentially includes justice. This, in turn, requires that the specific character of legal argumentation be expounded. The special case thesis, developed in A Theory of Legal Argumentation (1989), is an attempt to achieve both. The thesis says that legal discourse is a special case of general practical discourse. Habermas criticizes the special case thesis in his book Between Facts and Norms (1996). Counterarguments against four of his objections are presented in this chapter. They concern the relation between legal and moral discourse, the rules and forms of legal discourse, the problem of unjust law, and the question of whether general practical arguments acquire a specific legal nature in legal discourse.","PeriodicalId":142448,"journal":{"name":"Law's Ideal Dimension","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of the Indeterminacy of Law and the Rationality of Adjudication\",\"authors\":\"R. Alexy\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Every theory of legal argumentation has to determine the relation between legal certainty and correctness, which essentially includes justice. This, in turn, requires that the specific character of legal argumentation be expounded. The special case thesis, developed in A Theory of Legal Argumentation (1989), is an attempt to achieve both. The thesis says that legal discourse is a special case of general practical discourse. Habermas criticizes the special case thesis in his book Between Facts and Norms (1996). Counterarguments against four of his objections are presented in this chapter. They concern the relation between legal and moral discourse, the rules and forms of legal discourse, the problem of unjust law, and the question of whether general practical arguments acquire a specific legal nature in legal discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law's Ideal Dimension\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law's Ideal Dimension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law's Ideal Dimension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796831.003.0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

每一种法律论证理论都必须确定法律确定性与正确性之间的关系,法律确定性与正确性本质上包括正义。这反过来又要求对法律论证的具体性质加以阐述。《法律论辩理论》(1989)中提出的特殊案例论题是两者兼而有之的尝试。本文认为,法律话语是一般实践话语的一个特例。哈贝马斯在他的著作《事实与规范之间》(1996)中批判了特例理论。本章将对他的四个反对意见提出反驳。它们涉及法律和道德话语之间的关系,法律话语的规则和形式,不公正的法律问题,以及一般实践论点是否在法律话语中获得特定法律性质的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of the Indeterminacy of Law and the Rationality of Adjudication
Every theory of legal argumentation has to determine the relation between legal certainty and correctness, which essentially includes justice. This, in turn, requires that the specific character of legal argumentation be expounded. The special case thesis, developed in A Theory of Legal Argumentation (1989), is an attempt to achieve both. The thesis says that legal discourse is a special case of general practical discourse. Habermas criticizes the special case thesis in his book Between Facts and Norms (1996). Counterarguments against four of his objections are presented in this chapter. They concern the relation between legal and moral discourse, the rules and forms of legal discourse, the problem of unjust law, and the question of whether general practical arguments acquire a specific legal nature in legal discourse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信