作者：王天华
作者介绍：中国政法大学教授,博士生导师
出版日期：2016年6月9日
内容提要 行政法学通说基于传统的价值导向思考,主张行政机关对不确定法律概念 的解释适用应受全面的司法审查,例外时才享有“判断余地” ;且“判断余地”与行政裁量有 质的区别。 这一观点虽然价值正确但融贯性不足,且不符合法律实践规律。 法理学汲取语 言哲学、道德分析哲学的营养所展开的研究表明,价值导向思考所立足的唯一正确答案预 设是一个不能证成的本体论虚构。 不确定法律概念的不确定性出现且仅出现于语言规则 的尽头(临界案件) ;在语言规则的尽头,行政机关应在法律框架内追加价值判断(履行个 别情况考虑义务) ,来决定是否将该概念适用于个案事实。 不确定法律概念与行政裁量的 二元论和一元论都包含着部分真理,而在整体上以偏概全。
关键词 不确定法律概念 行政裁量 解释基准 语义学分析 法律论证
Abstract: On the basis of traditional value-oriented thinking, the common theory of administrative law advocates that the explanation and application of legal concepts of uncertainty for administrative organs shall be under comprehensive judicial review, and the organs enjoy “ the Space for Judgment ” only in exceptional circumstances, which is qualitatively different from administrative discretion. Although such view is correct in terms of value, it is not that coherent and not in conformity with legal practice. Drawing upon the philosophy of language and that of morality, the research of jurisprudence manifests that the presupposition of the only right answer, on which the value-oriented thinking is structured, is an ontological fiction that cannot be proved. The uncertainty of the uncertain legal concept occurs only at the margin of the rules ( critical cases ) ; and under such circumstances, administrative organs shall make more deliberate judgments within legal framework ( taking obligation into consideration in individual cases) so as to ensure whether the concept is applicable in individual cases. Both the dualism and monism of the legal concept of uncertainty embody a part of the truth, but they also make a mistake of over-generalization.