拉德布鲁赫公式与告密者困境——重思拉德布鲁赫-哈特之争
柯岚; 1:西北政法大学 摘要(Abstract)：

"拉德布鲁赫公式"不是一个具有普适意义的司法解决方案,而是拉德布鲁赫对法理念三种成分进行谨慎考量的结果。实际上,拉德布鲁赫并不主张对告密者案件直接运用这一公式。哈特对拉德布鲁赫公式的反驳是基于对告密者案件的误解。用自然法或实证主义将拉氏法哲学简单标签化的做法是不可取的。

关键词(KeyWords)： 拉德布鲁赫公式;;告密者;;自然法;;实证主义

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 柯岚;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [1]Robert Alexy,“A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula”,in David Dyzenhaus,ed.Recrafting the Rule of Law:The Limits of Legal Or-der(Oxford:Hart Publishing,1999),p.20.[2]Robert Alexy,“A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula”,in David Dyzenhaus,ed.Recrafting the Rule of Law:The Limits of Legal Or-der(Oxford:Hart Publishing,1999),p.15-39.[1]Thomas Mertens,Nazism,Legal Positivism and Radbruch's Thesis on Statutory Injustice,14Law Critiq.(2003),p.277.[2]Thomas Mertens,Nazism,Legal Positivism and Radbruch's Thesis on Statutory Injustice,14Law Critiq.(2003),p.279.[1]John Garner,Legal Positivism:5and half myths,46Am.J.Juris.,(2001),p.199.[3]Robert Alexy,“A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula”,in David Dyzenhaus,ed.Recrafting the Rule of Law:The Limits of Legal Order(Oxford:Hart Publishing,1999),p.36.[2]Gustav Radbruch,Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law,trans.By Bonnie Litschewske Palson and Stanley L.Polson,26O.J.L.S.,(2006),p.7[3]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.188.[1]Robert Alexy,“A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula”,in David Dyzenhaus,ed.Recrafting the Rule of Law:The Limits of Legal Order(Oxford:Hart Publishing,1999),p.36.[2]Stanley Palson,Radbruch on Unjust Laws:Competing Earlier and Later Views,15O.J.L.S.,(1995),p.493-494.[1]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.193.[2]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.192.[3]Stanley Palson,Radbruch on Unjust Laws:Competing Earlier and Later Views,15O.J.L.S.,(1995),p.497.[4]Robert Alexy,“A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula”,in David Dyzenhaus,ed.Recrafting the Rule of Law:The Limits of Legal Order(Oxford:Hart Publishing,1999),p.16.[5]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.190.[1]Robert Alexy,“A Defence of Radbruch’s Formula”,in David Dyzenhaus,ed.Recrafting the Rule of Law:The Limits of Legal Order(Oxford:Hart Publishing,1999),p.16.[2]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.190.[3]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.190.[4]Stanley Palson,Radbruch on Unjust Laws:Competing Earlier and Later Views,15O.J.L.S.,(1995),p.497.[5]Stanley Palson,Radbruch on Unjust Laws:Competing Earlier and Later Views,15O.J.L.S.,(1995),p.491-492.[6]H.L.A.Hart,Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,71Harv.L.Rev.,(1958),p.619-620,616.[7]H.L.A.Hart,Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,71Harv.L.Rev.,(1958),p.619.[1]H.L.A.Hart,The Concept of Law(2nd Edition),(Oxford,Clarendon Press,1994),p.P.304、208-209.[2]这一点,哈特自己实际上是认同的,他坚持要对邪恶的法律进行道德批评,“法律可以是法律,但它太邪恶以至于无法遵从。”H.L.A.Hart,Positivism and the Separation of Lawand Morals,71Harv.L.Rev.,620.(1958)但他在分析告密者案件时忽视了这一点。[3]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.203.[1]John Garner,Legal Positivism:5and half myths,46Am.J.Juris.,(2001),p.224.[1]Stanley Palson,Radbruch on Unjust Laws:Competing Earlier and Later Views,15O.J.L.S.,(1995),p.498.[2]Thomas Mertens,Radbruch and Hart on the Grudge Informer:A Reconsideration,15Ratio Juris.,(2002),p.193.[1]H.L.A.哈特在《法律的概念》一书中提出了“最低限度自然法”理论,认为某些基本的道德信条应是所有实在法律秩序必须具备的共通道德元素。See H.L.A.Hart,The Concept of Law(2nd Edition),Oxford,Clarendon Press(1994),pp192-200.一些自然法学家认为这代表了实证主义向自然法学做出了重大的让步,但从罗门作出的两种实证主义的区分来看,并不能必然得出这个结论,哈特是一个坚决的方法论实证主义者,认为道德不经过“承认规则”的确认,不能自动成为有效的法律,但在世界观上,他有限度地认同了自然法的某些准则。[1]强世功:《法律的现代性剧场:哈特与富勒论战》,法律出版社2005年版。[2][德]古斯塔夫.拉德布鲁赫:《法律智慧警句集》,舒国滢译,中国法制出版社2001年版。[3][德]古斯塔夫.拉德布鲁赫:《法哲学》,王朴译,法律出版社2005年版。[4][英]韦恩.莫里森:《法理学:从古希腊到后现代》,李桂林、李清伟、侯健、郑云瑞译,武汉大学出版社2003年版。[5][德]阿图尔.考夫曼:《古斯塔夫.拉德布鲁赫传》,舒国滢译,法律出版社2004年版。[6][英]登特列夫:《自然法———法律哲学导论》,李日章、梁捷、王利译,新星出版社2008年版。[7][德]海因里希.罗门:《自然法的观念史和哲学》,姚中秋译,上海三联书店2007年版。