論法律解釋的目標

林更盛

中文摘要

關於法律解釋目標的確認,不僅僅只是學術上的問題,對於法律解釋時所應使用的規則的重要性,也又有重要的影響。受到德國法學的影響,台灣在這方面的討有主觀說、客觀說與綜合說等不同見解而客觀說似乎在學理的討論上的主流學說。近來德國法上對此再起論戰。參考他們的討論,我們認為:本問題並無放諸四海皆準統一的答案,而是取決於各個具體的法律制度,而這包含了下述種種考量:憲法上(如法治原則、國會至上)、不同的法律領域(例如法官可擁有漏洞補充權限的民法VS.罪刑法定主義下的刑法)、以及不同法規範的特性(例如原則VS.規定)。

 

On the Goal of Statutory Interpretation

Geng-Schenq Lin

abstract

How to determine the goal of statutory interpretation is not only an academic issue, but is also essential when deciding the preferences of different rules. In Taiwan, under the influence of German jurisprudence, there are three theories - subjectivism, objectivism and synthesis - regarding statutory interpretation; and the objectivism is the mainstream in current academic discussion. In recent years, the issue of statutory interpretation is greatly discussed again in Germany. After reviewing German’s discussions, we conclude that there is no universal answer to the issue. Statutory interpretation shall depend on each and every concrete legal framework. And the discussion of statutory interpretation shall consider the following elements: the Constitution (for instance, the rule of law and the legislature supremacy), different fields of law (for instance, legal loopholes allowing judges to make new rules in civil law vs. nulla poena sine lege in criminal law), and different legal concepts with different types of legal norms (for instance, principles vs. rules).