论法律解释的目标-高大法学论丛.pdfVIP

論法律解釋的目標 1 《高大法學論叢》 第 7 卷第 2 期(03/2012) ，頁1-40 論法律解釋的目標 林更盛 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，也有其重要性。受到德國法學的影響，台灣在這方面 的討論，有主觀說、客觀說與綜合說等不同見解；客觀說似乎是學理上的 主流學說。近來德國法學對此再起論戰。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（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）。  東海大學法律系教授，德國雷根斯堡大學法學博士 投稿日期：09/05/2011 ；接受刊登日期：12/13/2011 責任校對：廖紫喬 1 2 高大法學論叢 第7 卷．第2 期 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