案件事实的归属论证
黄泽敏案件事实的归属论证
Attributive Argumentation of Case Facts
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：黄泽敏
单位：中南财经政法大学法学院
中文关键词：法律论证;归属论证;涵摄模式;等置模式;递进式符合模式
英文关键词：legal argumentation;attributing argumentation;subsumtion model;equalization model;progressive conforming model
中文摘要：
案件事实的归属论证是司法裁判说理的灵魂所在。它主要是为了打通事实与法律之间的屏障，解决案件事实能否归属于法律规则构成要件之下的说理难题。当前，涵摄模式与等置模式在归属论证方面均存在难以克服的缺陷。可以在汲取它们各自优势的基础上，根据可普遍化公理，对归属论证模式进行重新建构，确立事实论证与价值论证的递进式符合模式，以及相应的论述型式论证规范和"事实解释在先，价值解释在后"的法律解释原理。递进式符合模式具体表述为：若能够证明待决案件事实与构成要件指陈的要件事实在事实特征上相符合，则应当把案件事实归属在构成要件之下；事实特征无法证明相符合，就应当递进到对案件事实的价值判断是否符合法律规则的价值预设的证明：若符合，便将案件事实归属在构成要件之下，反之则不予归属。
英文摘要：
The attributive argumentation of case facts is the soul of argumentation in judicial adjudication. Its main purposes are to break the barrier between law and fact and to answer the difficult argumentation question of whether case facts can be attributed to constitutive requirement of legal rules. At present, both the subsumtion model and the equalization model have insurmountable drawbacks as argumentation model of attribution. Because of this, we should draw on the advantages of both models, reconstruct an argumentation model of attribution on the basis of generally acknowledged truth, establish the progressive conforming model of fact/value argumentation as attributing argumentation of case facts and the corresponding argumentative patterns, rules and principles. The progressive conforming model can be specifically expressed as the followings:if the facts of a pending case can be proved to be in conformity with the factual characteristics of constitutive requirement, they should be attributed to constitutive requirement without value argument; if the conformity of the factual characteristics cannot be proved, then it is necessary to consider the question of whether the value judgment of the case facts conforms to the value of legal rules. If answer is yes, the case facts should be attributed to constitutive requirement; and if answer is no, the case facts should not be attributed to constitutive requirement.
全文阅读： 点击下载
