法律規範性的不同意義——以哈特的法哲學作為考察對象

Abstract

本文嘗試從莊世同2013年發表於《中研院法學期刊》的〈法律的概念與法律規範性的來源〉與王鵬翔〈接受的態度能夠證成法律的規範性嗎？〉對該文的評論出發，整理出兩文對於法律規範性問題之刻畫與哈特（H. L. A. Hart）之法律規範性觀點的三個初步共識：「蘊涵理由的法律規範性是法哲學上重要的問題」、「哈特採取蘊涵理由的規範性」與「權威法律理由是特別的規範理由」。 本文將透過比較英美分析法哲學中哈特、拉茲（Joseph Raz）、Gerald Postema與David Enoch等諸位法哲學家對於法律規範性問題之刻畫（第二章），並引入後設倫理學與後設規範研究中，不同學者對於直覺上不同層次規範性意義的區分與說明（第三章），嘗試對哈特法哲學提出一種形式法律規範性研究的理解。此外，本文且主張哈特晚年出版的《論邊沁文集》（Essays on Bentham），不構成其對於法律規範性看法的重要轉向（第四章）。最後，據此於結論主張法律的形式與強韌規範性都是法哲學上重要的問題。

Recently, legal philosophers in Taiwan start to write articles about “the problem of normativity of law” or normativity of law. Shih-Tung Chuang’s “The Concept of Law and the Sources of Legal Normativity: Hart’s Acceptance Argument Reconsidered” and Peng-Hsiang Wang’s “Can the Attitude of Acceptance Justify the Normativity of Law? : Comment on Shih-Tung Chuang’s The Concept of Law and the Sources of Legal Normativity: Hart’s Acceptance Argument Reconsidered” are the most illuminating two of them. However, there are no further discussions on these two articles since they were published. Therefore, this thesis tries to exanimate the characterizations of the normativity of law and the interpretations of H.L.A. Hart’s conception of normativity of law in these two articles, and argue that there are three important consensuses in them. Firstly, they both agree that the reason-implying normativity of law are important issue of legal philosophy. Secondly, they also agree that H.L.A. Hart accepted the reason-implying normativity of law, at least in his “Essays on Bentham”. Thirdly, they are also the same of opinion, that “legal authoritative reasons” mentioned in “Essays on Bentham” and special kind of normative reasons. By comparing the works from several analytical legal philosophers like H.L.A. Hart, Joseph Raz, Gerald Postema and David Enoch, and by introducing the literatures on different varieties of normativity in meta-ethics or meta-normative inquiry, this thesis interprets H.L.A. Hart’s legal philosophy as an inquiry concerning formal normativity of law, regardless in his earlier “The Concept of Law” or later “Essays on Bentham”, and claims that formal and robust normativity of law are both important issues of legal philosophy.