盲从还是扬弃——奥斯丁《法理学范围之限定》第一讲迷思述论

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

行政法学院（纪检监察学院）

作者：

南景毓

导师：

郑文龙

导师单位：

行政法学院（纪检监察学院）

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

奥斯丁;《法理学范围之限定》第一讲;主题;法概念;法律命令说;盲从;扬弃

摘要：

在西方法学史上，奥斯丁是一位备受争议的历史人物。但不管人们在何种立场上评说奥斯丁及其思想，其理论的光芒仍像幽灵般地照耀着继往开来的法学朝拜者，其思想滋养了他们的法学素养。这样一种神奇的魔力，绝大部分来源于其呕心沥血写就的代表作《法理学范围之限定》。在这本生命铸就的法学经典里，第一讲无疑是无冕之王。但遗憾的是，以往对《法理学范围之限定》第一讲的解读不尽人意，甚至误读的地方甚多。这种不尽人意和误读主要表现在以下两个问题上：其一是认为《法理学范围之限定》一书是在为法理学划界；其二是人们对《法理学范围之限定》第一讲的关注过多地放在了“法律命令说”上，而无视或轻视第一讲中其他问题的存在。本文认为，《法理学范围之限定》的主题实际上是“实在法论”，而不是将法理学的范围划定为实在法。在奥斯丁那里，实在法无疑是法理学的一个主要领域，但他并没有将法理学限定在实在法。在《法理学范围之限定》第一讲中，“法律命令说”是占了很大的篇幅，但其内容是异常丰富的，并不限于“法律命令说”。如果将《法理学范围之限定》第一讲的内容等同于“法律命令说”，这无疑人为地压缩了该书第一讲内容。基于这种体察，笔者意欲对《法理学范围之限定》第一讲进行仅仅针对其文本本身的、以点带面的、纠偏的解读，期望能为《法理学范围之限定》的解读略尽绵薄之力。 在《法理学范围之限定》中，奥斯丁以逻辑学为其基本的分析工具，以法理学的素材是实在法为第一讲的引子，以实在法的概念界定为契机，以法律的本质为手段，步步深入地分析了法律是什么这样一个引人入胜的千古难题，描绘了其理想的法理学图景。顺应著者的理路，本文以逻辑的方法和比较的方法为基本分析工具，截取了该讲的主题、法概念的迷思和法律命令说三个问题，探究第一讲的迷人之处和它对全书的意义。 与本文截取的问题紧密相关，全文共分为五个部分： 引论部分简要地叙述了奥斯丁及其作品的概况、解读第一讲的心态、解读该讲的方法、解读该讲的思路四个问题。 第一章探讨了该讲也是全书的主题。在结构上，第一讲与其他五讲是总分关 2 系；在内容上，第一讲的内容浓缩了其他五讲的内容。因此，笔者认为，第一讲的主题，也是全书的主题。然而，第一讲的主题或者全书的主题是什么呢？自奥斯丁的传世之作《法理学范围之限定》降世以来，传统的、主流的观点认为，该书是在给法理学划界，法理学就是实在法。这一观点根深蒂固、枝繁叶茂，但危害也极深。为此，笔者通过对该书历史意义上主题的检讨和真正主题的探究得出，奥斯丁并没有将法理学的范围界定为实在法，该讲或者该书的主题应为“实在法论”。 第二章鉴赏了奥斯丁法概念的迷思。奥斯丁对法概念的分析独树一帜。这不但表现在他法概念的数量众多、功能各异，而且表现在其逻辑学分析的灵活运用。基于这种认识，笔者分析了其法概念分析工具的选用和不足、法概念定义方式的优劣、不同法概念的功用三个主要问题。 第三章客观地评价了奥斯丁作为法本质的法概念。“法律命令说”本来也是法概念的内容。之所以将其独立成章论证，在于其显要的地位和所受的重视。在此认识基础上，笔者首先回顾了“法律命令说”的理路，然后评价了“法律命令说”的历史功绩，最后点出了“法律命令说”的缺陷。 结语部分，笔者再次强调了研读第一讲的意义，读者应抱持的态度和笔者论述的局限。

学科：

宪法学与行政法学

提交日期：

2025-12-03

引用参考：

南景毓. 盲从还是扬弃——奥斯丁《法理学范围之限定》第一讲迷思述论[D]. 西南政法大学,2009.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 盲从还是扬弃——奥斯丁《法理学范围之限定》第一讲迷思述论
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20060301010039
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 南景毓
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 行政法学院（纪检监察学院）
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2009
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 郑文龙
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 行政法学院（纪检监察学院）
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 奥斯丁;《法理学范围之限定》第一讲;主题;法概念;法律命令说;盲从;扬弃
  • dc.subject
  • Austin;The First Lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined;Theme;Concept of the Law;“Theory of law as coercive orders”;Blindly Follow ;Reasonably Abandon
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 在西方法学史上，奥斯丁是一位备受争议的历史人物。但不管人们在何种立场上评说奥斯丁及其思想，其理论的光芒仍像幽灵般地照耀着继往开来的法学朝拜者，其思想滋养了他们的法学素养。这样一种神奇的魔力，绝大部分来源于其呕心沥血写就的代表作《法理学范围之限定》。在这本生命铸就的法学经典里，第一讲无疑是无冕之王。但遗憾的是，以往对《法理学范围之限定》第一讲的解读不尽人意，甚至误读的地方甚多。这种不尽人意和误读主要表现在以下两个问题上：其一是认为《法理学范围之限定》一书是在为法理学划界；其二是人们对《法理学范围之限定》第一讲的关注过多地放在了“法律命令说”上，而无视或轻视第一讲中其他问题的存在。本文认为，《法理学范围之限定》的主题实际上是“实在法论”，而不是将法理学的范围划定为实在法。在奥斯丁那里，实在法无疑是法理学的一个主要领域，但他并没有将法理学限定在实在法。在《法理学范围之限定》第一讲中，“法律命令说”是占了很大的篇幅，但其内容是异常丰富的，并不限于“法律命令说”。如果将《法理学范围之限定》第一讲的内容等同于“法律命令说”，这无疑人为地压缩了该书第一讲内容。基于这种体察，笔者意欲对《法理学范围之限定》第一讲进行仅仅针对其文本本身的、以点带面的、纠偏的解读，期望能为《法理学范围之限定》的解读略尽绵薄之力。 在《法理学范围之限定》中，奥斯丁以逻辑学为其基本的分析工具，以法理学的素材是实在法为第一讲的引子，以实在法的概念界定为契机，以法律的本质为手段，步步深入地分析了法律是什么这样一个引人入胜的千古难题，描绘了其理想的法理学图景。顺应著者的理路，本文以逻辑的方法和比较的方法为基本分析工具，截取了该讲的主题、法概念的迷思和法律命令说三个问题，探究第一讲的迷人之处和它对全书的意义。 与本文截取的问题紧密相关，全文共分为五个部分： 引论部分简要地叙述了奥斯丁及其作品的概况、解读第一讲的心态、解读该讲的方法、解读该讲的思路四个问题。 第一章探讨了该讲也是全书的主题。在结构上，第一讲与其他五讲是总分关 2 系；在内容上，第一讲的内容浓缩了其他五讲的内容。因此，笔者认为，第一讲的主题，也是全书的主题。然而，第一讲的主题或者全书的主题是什么呢？自奥斯丁的传世之作《法理学范围之限定》降世以来，传统的、主流的观点认为，该书是在给法理学划界，法理学就是实在法。这一观点根深蒂固、枝繁叶茂，但危害也极深。为此，笔者通过对该书历史意义上主题的检讨和真正主题的探究得出，奥斯丁并没有将法理学的范围界定为实在法，该讲或者该书的主题应为“实在法论”。 第二章鉴赏了奥斯丁法概念的迷思。奥斯丁对法概念的分析独树一帜。这不但表现在他法概念的数量众多、功能各异，而且表现在其逻辑学分析的灵活运用。基于这种认识，笔者分析了其法概念分析工具的选用和不足、法概念定义方式的优劣、不同法概念的功用三个主要问题。 第三章客观地评价了奥斯丁作为法本质的法概念。“法律命令说”本来也是法概念的内容。之所以将其独立成章论证，在于其显要的地位和所受的重视。在此认识基础上，笔者首先回顾了“法律命令说”的理路，然后评价了“法律命令说”的历史功绩，最后点出了“法律命令说”的缺陷。 结语部分，笔者再次强调了研读第一讲的意义，读者应抱持的态度和笔者论述的局限。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In western legal history, Austin is a highly controversial figure. But no matter based on what position people comment on Austin and his thought, the light of his theories have still been shining like a ghost into the future for the pilgrims to the sacred land of the law. His ideas also nourish their legal accomplishment. Such a wonderful magic originates mostly from his magnum opus, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, which was written with great pain. In this legal classic written with the whole life of the author, the first lecture is no doubt an uncrowned emperor. It is a pity that most of the interpretations of the first lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined in the past were not satisfactory or even made misreading. Such phenomenon has raised the following two issues: the first one is most people think that The Province of Jurisprudence Determined was written with the purpose to define the boundary of jurisprudence. The other is most people pay much more attention to “Theory of law as coercive orders” of the first lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined and look down on or pay no attention to other issues in the first lecture. This thesis argues that the theme of the first lecture is not defining the province of jurisprudence as positive law, but in fact is discussing about positive law. In Austin’s theory, it is no doubt that positive law is a main domain, but Austin doesn’t define the province of jurisprudence as positive law. In the first lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, “Theory of law as coercive orders” has taken up great length, but the content of the first lecture is exceptionally rich, and is not limited to “Theory of law as coercive orders”. If we simply limit the theme of the first lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined to “Theory of law as coercive orders”, this will dismiss the richful discussion in the first lecture without doubt. Based on this observation, the author intends to interpret the first lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined according to what the text itself tells us, in a way that we may understand the meaning of the whole book from some major points formulated in the first lecture. By doing so, the author mean to correct some misreading and devote himself humbly to unscramble The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. In the book The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, Austin used logic as his 4 basic instrument of analysis. He began his work with “The matter of jurisprudence is positive law”. He seized the opportunity by defining the concept of positive law. He explored the essence of the law as a means and analyzed what the law is step by step, which is a fascinating age-old problem. He also described his ideal picture of jurisprudence with the above achievements. Conforming to the author's logic, this thesis looked into the attractiveness and its significance of the first lecture for the whole book by intercepting the following three issues: the theme, the myth of concept of the law and “Theory of law as coercive orders” of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. During this course, the author of this thesis has employed logic and comparative method as elementary instrument of analysis. In close relation to the intercepted problems, the thesis is divided into five parts: The introduction briefly described some information about Austin and his works, the interpretations of the first lecture, the method used in these interpretations, and the path of thought behind them. The first chapter discussed the theme of the first lecture which is also that of the entire book. Structurally, the first lecture’s relationship with the other five lectures is like the one between pandect and its sub-chapters. The content of the first lecture has covered those of the other five lectures. For this reason, the author believes that the theme of the first lecture is also that of the entire book. However, what is the theme of the first lecture or even the entire book? Since Austin’s The Province of Jurisprudence Determined was born, the traditional mainstream viewpoint believed that this book had defined the jurisprudence which is all about positive law. This viewpoint has been deeply ingrained and well-developed. Yet, its harms is extremely great. Therefore, the author concluded that Austin didn’t define the province of jurisprudence as positive law through probing into the historical theme and the genuine theme of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, and that the theme of the first lecture or the whole book is the discussion about positive law. The second chapter appreciated the myth of concept of the law. In his conceptual analysis of law, Austin has developed a school of his own. This not only is displayed in his creation of a number of concepts of the law and different functions of different concepts of the law, but also in his nimble logical analysis. Based on such understanding, the author has analyzed the insufficiency and the criteria of his selection of tool used in analysis of concept of the law, the advantages and disadvantages of his definition of what the law is, and various functions of different 5 concepts of the law. The author assessed Austin’s concept of the law objectively as the essence of law in the third chapter. In fact, “Theory of law as coercive orders” itself is the content of concept of the law. The reason why the author discussed it separately from the content of concept of the law lies in its important status and given value. Under this understanding, the author first reviewed Austin's train of thought of “Theory of law as coercive orders”. Then the author spoke highly of the historical merits of “Theory of law as coercive orders”. In the end the author pointed out the imperfection of “Theory of law as coercive orders”. In the epilogue the author emphasized once more the significance of reading the first lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, and pointed out what attitude the reader should hold when they read the first lecture of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. In addition, the author reflected profoundly upon the limitations of his thesis.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-03
回到顶部