证据与法律推理

125
证证证证证证证 证证证 证证证证证

Upload: phyre

Post on 10-Jan-2016

73 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

DESCRIPTION

证据与法律推理. 主讲人:熊明辉教授. 我的联系方式. 办公地点 南校区文科三楼逻辑与认知研究所 304C 室 联系电话 办公室: 84113340 手机: 13678924906 电子邮箱 [email protected] [email protected] 即时通号 QQ: 1164157358 飞信: 798283253 个人主页 http://logic.sysu.edu.cn/faculty/xiongminghui. 教学纪律. 作业 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 证据与法律推理

证据与法律推理主讲人熊明辉教授

2

我的联系方式 办公地点 南校区文科三楼逻辑与认知研究所 304C 室 联系电话 办公室 84113340 手机 13678924906 电子邮箱 hssxmhmailsysueducn xiongminghuifoxmailcom 即时通号 QQ 1164157358 飞信 798283253 个人主页 httplogicsysueducnfacultyxiongminghui

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

3

教学纪律

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

作业 1 完成 PPT 上每讲之后课外作业通过电子邮件提交过

期补交不予认可2 作业提交电子专业用邮箱 legalreasoning09gmailcom

考试1 本门课程不安排期中考试2 期末考试为课程论文第 17 周星期三之前提交论文电子

版到专用邮箱并且星期三上课时间提交打印稿过期提交一律不予认可

3 期末成绩 = 平时成绩 (40)+ 考试成绩 (60) 其中平时成绩根据课堂表现和课外作业完成情况与质量评定

期末课程论文题目(选做一题论文不少于 6000 字)

1 我国当前证据法中存在的问题及其对策

2 试论法律与逻辑的关系

4

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

5

教学计划

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

周次 日期 内容 周次 日期 内容1 914 第 01 次 导

10 1116 第 09 次 法律分析

2 921 第 02 次 导 论

11 1123 第 10 次 法律论证

3 928 第 03 次 导 论

12 1130 第 11 次 法律论证

4 105 国庆放假 13 127 第 12 次 法律论证 5 1012 第 04 次 法律证

14 1214 第 13 次 法律解释

6 1019 第 05 次 法律证据

15 1221 第 14 次 法律解释

7 1026 第 06 次 法律推理

16 1228 第 15 次 侦查推理

8 112 第 07 次 法律推理

17 14 第 16 次 侦查推理 提交课程论文

9 119 第 08 次 法律逻辑

18 期末考试时间

6

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

7

本讲参考书目

1 熊明辉著逻辑学导论复旦大学出版社 2011 年2 熊明辉著诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法

大出版社 2010 年3 沃尔顿著梁庆寅熊明辉等译法律论证与证据中

国政法大学出版社 2010 年4 httpenwikipediaorgwikiLogic

5 httpgroupscsailmitedudigTAMIinprogressLegalReasoninghtml

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 2: 证据与法律推理

2

我的联系方式 办公地点 南校区文科三楼逻辑与认知研究所 304C 室 联系电话 办公室 84113340 手机 13678924906 电子邮箱 hssxmhmailsysueducn xiongminghuifoxmailcom 即时通号 QQ 1164157358 飞信 798283253 个人主页 httplogicsysueducnfacultyxiongminghui

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

3

教学纪律

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

作业 1 完成 PPT 上每讲之后课外作业通过电子邮件提交过

期补交不予认可2 作业提交电子专业用邮箱 legalreasoning09gmailcom

考试1 本门课程不安排期中考试2 期末考试为课程论文第 17 周星期三之前提交论文电子

版到专用邮箱并且星期三上课时间提交打印稿过期提交一律不予认可

3 期末成绩 = 平时成绩 (40)+ 考试成绩 (60) 其中平时成绩根据课堂表现和课外作业完成情况与质量评定

期末课程论文题目(选做一题论文不少于 6000 字)

1 我国当前证据法中存在的问题及其对策

2 试论法律与逻辑的关系

4

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

5

教学计划

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

周次 日期 内容 周次 日期 内容1 914 第 01 次 导

10 1116 第 09 次 法律分析

2 921 第 02 次 导 论

11 1123 第 10 次 法律论证

3 928 第 03 次 导 论

12 1130 第 11 次 法律论证

4 105 国庆放假 13 127 第 12 次 法律论证 5 1012 第 04 次 法律证

14 1214 第 13 次 法律解释

6 1019 第 05 次 法律证据

15 1221 第 14 次 法律解释

7 1026 第 06 次 法律推理

16 1228 第 15 次 侦查推理

8 112 第 07 次 法律推理

17 14 第 16 次 侦查推理 提交课程论文

9 119 第 08 次 法律逻辑

18 期末考试时间

6

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

7

本讲参考书目

1 熊明辉著逻辑学导论复旦大学出版社 2011 年2 熊明辉著诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法

大出版社 2010 年3 沃尔顿著梁庆寅熊明辉等译法律论证与证据中

国政法大学出版社 2010 年4 httpenwikipediaorgwikiLogic

5 httpgroupscsailmitedudigTAMIinprogressLegalReasoninghtml

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 3: 证据与法律推理

3

教学纪律

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

作业 1 完成 PPT 上每讲之后课外作业通过电子邮件提交过

期补交不予认可2 作业提交电子专业用邮箱 legalreasoning09gmailcom

考试1 本门课程不安排期中考试2 期末考试为课程论文第 17 周星期三之前提交论文电子

版到专用邮箱并且星期三上课时间提交打印稿过期提交一律不予认可

3 期末成绩 = 平时成绩 (40)+ 考试成绩 (60) 其中平时成绩根据课堂表现和课外作业完成情况与质量评定

期末课程论文题目(选做一题论文不少于 6000 字)

1 我国当前证据法中存在的问题及其对策

2 试论法律与逻辑的关系

4

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

5

教学计划

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

周次 日期 内容 周次 日期 内容1 914 第 01 次 导

10 1116 第 09 次 法律分析

2 921 第 02 次 导 论

11 1123 第 10 次 法律论证

3 928 第 03 次 导 论

12 1130 第 11 次 法律论证

4 105 国庆放假 13 127 第 12 次 法律论证 5 1012 第 04 次 法律证

14 1214 第 13 次 法律解释

6 1019 第 05 次 法律证据

15 1221 第 14 次 法律解释

7 1026 第 06 次 法律推理

16 1228 第 15 次 侦查推理

8 112 第 07 次 法律推理

17 14 第 16 次 侦查推理 提交课程论文

9 119 第 08 次 法律逻辑

18 期末考试时间

6

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

7

本讲参考书目

1 熊明辉著逻辑学导论复旦大学出版社 2011 年2 熊明辉著诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法

大出版社 2010 年3 沃尔顿著梁庆寅熊明辉等译法律论证与证据中

国政法大学出版社 2010 年4 httpenwikipediaorgwikiLogic

5 httpgroupscsailmitedudigTAMIinprogressLegalReasoninghtml

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 4: 证据与法律推理

4

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

5

教学计划

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

周次 日期 内容 周次 日期 内容1 914 第 01 次 导

10 1116 第 09 次 法律分析

2 921 第 02 次 导 论

11 1123 第 10 次 法律论证

3 928 第 03 次 导 论

12 1130 第 11 次 法律论证

4 105 国庆放假 13 127 第 12 次 法律论证 5 1012 第 04 次 法律证

14 1214 第 13 次 法律解释

6 1019 第 05 次 法律证据

15 1221 第 14 次 法律解释

7 1026 第 06 次 法律推理

16 1228 第 15 次 侦查推理

8 112 第 07 次 法律推理

17 14 第 16 次 侦查推理 提交课程论文

9 119 第 08 次 法律逻辑

18 期末考试时间

6

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

7

本讲参考书目

1 熊明辉著逻辑学导论复旦大学出版社 2011 年2 熊明辉著诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法

大出版社 2010 年3 沃尔顿著梁庆寅熊明辉等译法律论证与证据中

国政法大学出版社 2010 年4 httpenwikipediaorgwikiLogic

5 httpgroupscsailmitedudigTAMIinprogressLegalReasoninghtml

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 5: 证据与法律推理

5

教学计划

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

周次 日期 内容 周次 日期 内容1 914 第 01 次 导

10 1116 第 09 次 法律分析

2 921 第 02 次 导 论

11 1123 第 10 次 法律论证

3 928 第 03 次 导 论

12 1130 第 11 次 法律论证

4 105 国庆放假 13 127 第 12 次 法律论证 5 1012 第 04 次 法律证

14 1214 第 13 次 法律解释

6 1019 第 05 次 法律证据

15 1221 第 14 次 法律解释

7 1026 第 06 次 法律推理

16 1228 第 15 次 侦查推理

8 112 第 07 次 法律推理

17 14 第 16 次 侦查推理 提交课程论文

9 119 第 08 次 法律逻辑

18 期末考试时间

6

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

7

本讲参考书目

1 熊明辉著逻辑学导论复旦大学出版社 2011 年2 熊明辉著诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法

大出版社 2010 年3 沃尔顿著梁庆寅熊明辉等译法律论证与证据中

国政法大学出版社 2010 年4 httpenwikipediaorgwikiLogic

5 httpgroupscsailmitedudigTAMIinprogressLegalReasoninghtml

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 6: 证据与法律推理

6

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

7

本讲参考书目

1 熊明辉著逻辑学导论复旦大学出版社 2011 年2 熊明辉著诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法

大出版社 2010 年3 沃尔顿著梁庆寅熊明辉等译法律论证与证据中

国政法大学出版社 2010 年4 httpenwikipediaorgwikiLogic

5 httpgroupscsailmitedudigTAMIinprogressLegalReasoninghtml

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 7: 证据与法律推理

7

本讲参考书目

1 熊明辉著逻辑学导论复旦大学出版社 2011 年2 熊明辉著诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法

大出版社 2010 年3 沃尔顿著梁庆寅熊明辉等译法律论证与证据中

国政法大学出版社 2010 年4 httpenwikipediaorgwikiLogic

5 httpgroupscsailmitedudigTAMIinprogressLegalReasoninghtml

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 8: 证据与法律推理

8

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 9: 证据与法律推理

9

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations including the Indian subcontinent Persia China and Greece Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy The study of logic was part of the classical trivium

bull The trivia (singular trivium) are the three lower Artes Liberales ie grammar rhetoric and logic

bull Logic is often divided into two parts inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 10: 证据与法律推理

10

逻辑都是形式的吗

Naturebull The concept of logical form is central to logic it being held

that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form not by its content Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics

1 Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 11: 证据与法律推理

11

逻辑都是形式的吗 Nature2 Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal

content (structure) bull An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be

expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule that is a rule that is not about any particular thing or property The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic

bull Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle In many definitions of logic logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same

bull This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 12: 证据与法律推理

12

逻辑都是形式的吗

Nature

3 Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches propositional logic and predicate logic

4 Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas in particular to the study of model theory proof theory set theory and recursion theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 13: 证据与法律推理

13

逻辑都是形式的吗bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the

study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments

bull Arguments express inferences mdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves

bull Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination

bull It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 14: 证据与法律推理

14

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull As a byproduct logic provides prescriptions for reasoning that is how peoplemdashas well as other intelligent beings machines and systemsmdashought to reason

bull However such prescriptions are not essential to logic itself rather they are an application How people actually reason is usually studied in other fields including cognitive psychology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 15: 证据与法律推理

15

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Traditionally logic is studied as a branch of philosophy Since the mid-1800s logic has been commonly studied in mathematics and even more recently in computer science

bull As a science logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments and devises schemata by which these are codified The scope of logic can therefore be very large including reasoning about probability and causality

bull Also studied in logic are the structure of fallacious arguments and paradoxes The ancient Greeks divided dialectic into logic and rhetoric Rhetoric concerned with persuasive arguments would currently be seen as contrasted with logic in some sense as is dialectic in most of its acquired meanings

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 16: 证据与法律推理

16

逻辑都是形式的吗

Scope of logicbull As it has developed many distinctions have been introduced

into logic bull These distinctions serve to help formalize different forms of

logic as a science Here are some of the more important distinctions

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 17: 证据与法律推理

17

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull Originally logic consisted only of deductive reasoning which

concerns what follows universally from given premises bull However it is important to note that inductive reasoningmdashthe

study of deriving a reliable generalization from observationsmdashhas sometimes been included in the study of logic

bull Correspondingly we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity

bull An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion false

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 18: 证据与法律推理

18

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Deductive and inductive reasoningbull The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for

systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics

bull Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways some less formal than others some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability

bull For the most part our discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 19: 证据与法律推理

19

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull The study of logic is divided into formal and informal logic bull Formal logic (sometimes called symbolic logic) attempts to

capture the nature of logical truth and inference in formal systems which consist of a formal language a set of rules of derivation (often called rules of inference) and sometimes a set of axioms

bull The formal language consists of a (often small) set of discrete symbols a syntax and (often) a semantics and expressions in this language are often called formulas

bull The rules of derivation and potential axioms then operate with the language to specify a set of theorems which are formulas that are either axioms or are derivable using the rules of derivation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 20: 证据与法律推理

20

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Formal and informal logicbull In the case of formal logical systems the theorems are often

interpretable as expressing logical truths (tautologies) and in this way can such systems be said to capture at least a part of logical truth and inference

bull Formal logic encompasses a wide variety of logical systems For instance propositional logic and predicate logic are a kind of formal logic as well as temporal logic modal logic Hoare logic the calculus of constructions etc Higher-order logics are logical systems based on a hierarchy of types

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 21: 证据与法律推理

21

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Informal logic is the study of logic as used in natural language arguments

bull Informal logic is complicated by the fact that it may be very hard to tease out the formal logical structure embedded in an argument

bull Informal logic is also more difficult because the semantics of natural language assertions is much more complicated than the semantics of formal logical systems due to the presence of such phenomena as defeasibility

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 22: 证据与法律推理

22

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull In judicial opinions the use of defeasible is commonplace bull There is however disagreement among legal logicians whether

defeasible reasoning is central eg in the consideration of open texture precedent exceptions and rationales or whether it applies only to explicit defeasance clauses

bull HLA Hart in The Concept of Law gives two famous examples of defeasibility

No vehicles in the park (except during parades) and Offer acceptance and memorandum produce a contract (except when the contract is illegal the parties are minors inebriated or incapacitated etc)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 23: 证据与法律推理

23

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic

bull Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning where the reasoning does not produce a full complete or final demonstration of a claim ie where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged

bull Other kinds of non-demonstrative reasoning are probabilistic reasoning inductive reasoning statistical reasoning abductive reasoning and paraconsistent reasoning

bull Defeasible reasoning is also a kind of ampliative reasoning because its conclusions reach beyond the pure meanings of the premises

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 24: 证据与法律推理

24

逻辑都是形式的吗

2 Paradigms of logic21 Aristotelian logic22 Predicate logic23 Modal logic24 Dialectical logic25 Mathematical logic26 Philosophical logic27 Logic and computation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 25: 证据与法律推理

25

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The motivation for the study of logic in ancient times was clear as we have described

it is so that we may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments and so become more effective in argument and oratory and perhaps also to become a better person

bull This motivation is still alive although it no longer takes centre stage in the picture of logic typically dialectical logic will form the heart of a course in critical thinking a compulsory course at many universities especially those that follow the American model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 26: 证据与法律推理

26

逻辑都是形式的吗

演绎逻辑deductive logic

归纳逻辑inductive logic

非形式逻辑informal logic

形式逻辑formal logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 27: 证据与法律推理

27

逻辑都是形式的吗

我们的结论

逻辑并不都是形式的

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 28: 证据与法律推理

28

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning

bull Logic is used in most intellectual activities but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy mathematics semantics and computer science

bull Logic examines general forms which arguments may take which forms are valid and which are fallacies

bull In philosophy the study of logic figures in most major areas epistemology ethics metaphysics

bull In mathematics it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language

bull Logic is also studied in argumentation theory

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 29: 证据与法律推理

29

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Logic (from ancient Greek λόγος (logos) meaning reason) is the study of arguments Its primary task is to set up criteria for distinguishing good from bad arguments Arguments express inferencesmdashthe processes whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones As such of particular concern in logic is the structure of argumentsmdashthe formal relations between the newly produced assertions and the previously established ones where formal means that the relations are independent of the assertions themselves Just as important is the investigation of validity of inference including various possible definitions of validity and practical conditions for its determination It is thus seen that logic plays an important role in epistemology in that it provides a mechanism for extension of knowledge

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 30: 证据与法律推理

30

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 31: 证据与法律推理

31

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 32: 证据与法律推理

32

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true The conclusion drawn is also called an inference The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic

bull Human inference (ie how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference Statistical inference allows for inference from quantitative data

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 33: 证据与法律推理

33

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 34: 证据与法律推理

34

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull The faculty of reason also known as rationality or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to intuitive reason) is a virtue that governs the exploratory interactions of humans with the universe - such as those employed in our practice of the natural sciences

bull It is a mental ability found in human beings and normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature

bull It is closely associated with such human activities as language science art mathematics and philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 35: 证据与法律推理

35

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason like habit or intuition is a means by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea

bull But more specifically it is the way rational beings propose and consider explanations concerning cause and effect true and false and what is good or bad

bull In contrast to reason as an abstract noun a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event phenomenon or behavior

bull The ways in which human beings reason through an argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 36: 证据与法律推理

36

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs attitudes traditions and institutions and therefore with the capacity for Freedom and self-determination

bull Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason eg which cognitive and neural processes are engaged and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw

bull The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally

bull Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 37: 证据与法律推理

37

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 38: 证据与法律推理

38

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull An argument in logic is either

(a) a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences in a natural language known as the premises along with another sentence known as the conclusion or

(b) a non-empty collection of formulas in a formal language one of which is designated to be the conclusion bull An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of

the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 39: 证据与法律推理

39

逻辑都是形式的吗

Logical argumentbull An argument is an attempt to demonstrate the

truth of an assertion called a conclusion based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises

bull The process of demonstration of deductive and inductive reasoning shapes the argument and presumes some kind of communication which could be part of a written text a speech or a conversation

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

前提

结论

演绎支持

归纳支持

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 40: 证据与法律推理

40

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 41: 证据与法律推理

41

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull Argumentation theory or argumentation is the interdisciplinary study of how humans should can and do reach conclusions through logical reasoning that is claims based soundly or not on premises

bull It includes the arts and sciences of civil debate dialogue conversation and persuasion

bull It studies rules of inference logic and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings

bull Argumentation includes debate and negotiation which are concerned with reaching mutually acceptable conclusions

bull It also encompasses eristic dialog the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 42: 证据与法律推理

42

逻辑都是形式的吗

bull This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue in common parlance and during the process of arguing

bull Argumentation is used in law for example in trials in preparing an argument to be presented to a court and in testing the validity of certain kinds of evidence

bull Also argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 43: 证据与法律推理

43

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

1 Understanding and identifying arguments either explicit or implied and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue

2 Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived

3 Establishing the burden of proof mdash determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why hisher position merits acceptance

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 44: 证据与法律推理

44

逻辑都是形式的吗

Key components of argumentation

4 For the one carrying the burden of proof the advocate to marshal evidence for hisher position in order to convince or force the opponents acceptance The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid sound and cogent arguments devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked

5 In a debate fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponentrsquos argument to attack the reasonspremises of the argument to provide counterexamples if possible to identify any logical fallacies and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for hisher argument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 45: 证据与法律推理

45

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull Scholars at the University of Amsterdam in the

Netherlands have pioneered a rigorous modern version of dialectic under the name pragma-dialectics

bull The intuitive idea is to formulate clearcut rules that if followed will yield rational discussion and sound conclusions

bull Frans H van Eemeren the late Rob Grootendorst and many of their students have produced a large body of work expounding this idea

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 46: 证据与法律推理

46

逻辑都是形式的吗

Pragma-dialecticsbull The dialectical conception of reasonableness is given

by ten rules for critical discussion all being instrumental for achieving a resolution of the difference of opinion

bull The theory postulates this as an ideal model and not something one expects to find as an empirical fact

bull The model can however serve as an important heuristic and critical tool for testing how reality approximates this ideal and point to where discourse goes wrong that is when the rules are violated

bull Any such violation will constitute a fallacy 第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 47: 证据与法律推理

47

逻辑都是形式的吗

1 Inference

2 Reasoning

3 Argument

4 Argumentation

5 Proof

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 48: 证据与法律推理

48

逻辑都是形式的轻吗

Proof may refer tobull Proof (truth) sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a

propositionbull Formal proofbull Mathematical proofbull Proof theory a branch of mathematical logic that represents

proofs as formal mathematical objectsbull Evidence information which tends to determine or

demonstrate the truth of a propositionbull Evidence (law) tested evidence or a legal proofbull Alcohol proof a measure of an alcoholic drinks strength

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

bull Artists proof a single print taken during the printmaking process

bull Galley proof a preliminary version of a publicationbull Prepress proof a facsimile of press artwork for job

verificationbull Proof coinage coins once made as a test but now specially

struck for collectorsbull Proofreading reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors

or improvementsbull Proofing (baking technique) the process by which a yeast-

leavened dough rises also called proving

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 49: 证据与法律推理

49

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull An inference is a set of propositions one of which is designated a conclusion (end point) and the others are designated premises (start points)

bull The inference ldquogoesrdquo from the premises to the conclusion Evidence that an inference exists in a text of discourse is indicated by the so-called indicator words-thus therefore so on this basis and so on

bull Reasoning is a sequence of propositions and more particularly is a sequence of inferences linked together such that the conclusion of one inference also functions as premise in the next inference in the chain

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

httpwwwdougwaltonca

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 50: 证据与法律推理

50

逻辑都是形式的吗

We define the word argument in terms of reasoning and reasoning in terms of inference

bull Then an argument is defined as a sequence of reasoning a network of propositions in which some propositions functioning as conclusions are inferred from others functioning as premises by means of inferences

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 51: 证据与法律推理

51

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 52: 证据与法律推理

52第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

法律推理著作

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 53: 证据与法律推理

53

法律推理著作

1 爱德华 middotHmiddot 列维著庄重译法律推理引论 中国政法大学出版社 (2002 年出版 )

bull Edward H Levi An Introduction to Legal

Reasoning University of Chicago 1949

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 54: 证据与法律推理

54

法律推理著作

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

2 史帝文 J 伯顿著张志铭解兴权译法律与法律推理导论中国政法大学出版社 1998 年

bull Steven J Burton An Introduction to Law and

Legal Reasoning 3rd edition Aspen Publishers

2007

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 55: 证据与法律推理

55

法律推理著作

3 尼尔bull麦考密克著姜丰译法律推理与法律理论法律出版社 2005 年

bull Neil MaCormick Legal Reasoning and

Legal Theory Oxford University Press

1978

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 56: 证据与法律推理

56

法律推理著作

4 沙龙 middot 汉森著李桂林译法律方法与法律推理(第 2 版)武汉大学出版社 2010

bull Sharon Hansen Legal Method and Legal

Reasoning 2nd edition Cavendish Publishing

(Australia) Pty Ltd 20031999

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 57: 证据与法律推理

57

法律推理著作

1 理查德 middotKmiddot 诺伊曼著法律推理与法律写作(影印版)中信出版社 2003

bull Jr Richard K Neumann Legal

Reasoning and Legal Writing 6th edition

Wolters Kluwer 2009

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 58: 证据与法律推理

58

法律推理著作

1 张保生法律推理的理论与方法中国政法大学出版社2000 年

2 陈锐法律推理论山东人民出版社 2006 年

3 解兴权通过向正义之路法律推理的方法研究中国政法大学出版 2000 年

4 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 59: 证据与法律推理

59

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 60: 证据与法律推理

60

法律推理著作

1 Jerzy Stelmach amp Bartosz Brożek Methods of Legal Reasoning Springer 2006

2 Larry Alexander amp Emily Sherwin Demystifying Legal Reasoning Cambridge University Press 2008

3 Frederick Schauer Thinking Like A Lawyer An New Introduction to Legal Lawyer Harvard University Press 2009

4 Kenneth J Vandevelde Thinking Like a Lawyer An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Second Edition Westview Press 2010

5 helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 61: 证据与法律推理

61

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 62: 证据与法律推理

62

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

I This opinion was expressed inter alia by von Kirchmann( 基尔希曼 1802-1884 ) who in 1847 delivered a lecture entitled Die Wertlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft (The worthlessness of jurisprudence as a science)

II Joseph C Hutcheson( 哈奇森 1879-1973) a representative of the intuitionist version of American realism claimed that a judge who has to decide a concrete case must have recourse to his own intuition and imagination

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 63: 证据与法律推理

63

法律推理的方法

bull The first of these stances by far the rarest although very important for the purposes of the discussion in question not only puts into doubt the scientific character of jurisprudence but questions the very existence of any legal methods

III Critical Legal Studies( 批判法学派) The representatives of Critical Legal Studies in turn believe that the traditional methods of investigating and teaching law are useless For them ldquolaw is politicsrdquo consequently there is no such thing as the method of law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 64: 证据与法律推理

64

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy (他律性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 65: 证据与法律推理

65

法律推理的方法

bull According to the second more moderate stance jurisprudence has some features of a ldquoreal sciencerdquo but only under the assumption that it uses methods of other scientific disciplines like mathematics logic physics biology or ndash in some cases ndash linguistics sociology or economics Jurisprudence enjoys therefore the status of a science but only at the cost of losing its methodological identity and autonomy

bull Analytic philosophy of law(deontic logic) legal realism school of free law American realism sociological jurisprudence Scandinavian realism system theory economics of law argumentation theory legal hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 66: 证据与法律推理

66

法律推理的方法

Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy( 他律性) 113 Methodological Autonomy( 自治性)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 67: 证据与法律推理

67

法律推理的方法

bull The third of the stances presented here assumes that jurisprudence enjoys at least to a certain degree a methodological autonomy and develops its own ldquoinnerrdquo criteria of what constitutes a science

I Roman jurisprudence The thesis that law is methodologically autonomous was advocated by Roman jurists

II Historical school the ldquodetachmentrdquo of legal philosophy from general philosophy Savignyrsquos Juristische Methodenlehre

III Legal positivism Austinrsquos theory of law the continental Begriffsjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Conception) Kelsenrsquos normativism and Hartrsquos nalytic legal theory count as positivist

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 68: 证据与法律推理

68

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 69: 证据与法律推理

69

法律推理的方法

bull What has been said so far shows that it is hard to settle the discussion concerning the methodology of legal reasoning There are several different stances in this controversy

I on the one hand it is questioned whether methods of legal argumentation have any autonomy or even whether such methods exist

II whilst on the other hand philosophers defend the autonomous character of legal methodology

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 70: 证据与法律推理

70

法律推理的方法

bull Another noteworthy aspect of the debate is its terminological chaos which makes reaching a clear conclusion even more elusive This terminological chaos has already been displayed here at the most general level We wrote about

I ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

II ldquothe methods of legal argumentrdquo

III ldquothe method of jurisprudencerdquo

IV ldquothe methods used by lawyersrdquo

V helliphellip

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 71: 证据与法律推理

71

法律推理的方法

bull In order to clarify some basic terminological issues let us identify three different categories of application of ldquothe methods of legal reasoningrdquo

I First those methods can be applied in legal practice (by judges prosecutors barristers) in the process of creating and interpreting law Let us call this application of the methods in question practical

II Second one can speak of legal-dogmatic application of those methods ie their application within specialist analyses carried out in various areas of law

III Finally one can point to the theoretical application thereof this occurs in legal theory and legal philosophy

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 72: 证据与法律推理

72

法律推理的方法

1 Controversy over Legal Method in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

11 Three Stances

111 The Rejection of Method

112 Methodological Heteronomy

113 Methodological Autonomy

12 Methods of Legal Reasoning

13 Logic ndash Analysis ndash Argumentation ndash Hermeneutics

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 73: 证据与法律推理

73

法律推理的方法

Below we will consider four methods used by legal practitioners and theoreticians logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Here two questions should be answered

I do those four methods exhaust the entire spectrum of methods used in legal thinking

II what are the relationships between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics Are they independent of each other or do they overlap

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 74: 证据与法律推理

74

法律推理的方法

bull It is difficult to answer the first question

I On the one hand one can name several ldquomethodsrdquo that are not instances of one of the four mentioned A good example is the psychological theory of Petrażycki (1867-1931 professor of University of Warsaw jurist philosopher and logician one of the founders of sociology of law )

II On the other hand however the four listed methods (or better groups of methods) not only have a historically established position but also are applicable to all the spheres we described above ie in creating and interpreting law in legal-dogmatic analyses and in legal theory Therefore there is some justification backing our choice

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 75: 证据与法律推理

75

法律推理的方法

bull As for the second question the ldquobordersrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics are not sharp In popular textbooks it is usually held that there are two types of analysis descriptive and reconstructive

I Descriptive analysis aims to describe how ordinary language functions

II Reconstructive analysis on the other hand tries to reform ordinary language with the use of logical tools In contemporary philosophy (and legal theory) a strict differentiation between logical and descriptive analysis is impossible

bull Elements of both types of analysis are mixed together as in the case of the ldquothird wayrdquo ndash between the Scylla of description and Harybdis of reconstruction ndash developed by J Hintikka

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 76: 证据与法律推理

76

法律推理的方法

Logic is therefore a tool of analysis bull One could ask why we have decided to treat logic separately

from analysis There are several reasons

I First unlike ldquoanalysis in generalrdquo logic is rather a uniform method and can hence be defined relatively easily

II Second logical methods can be presented nicely from a historical perspective which enables their consequent development to be tracked

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 77: 证据与法律推理

77

法律推理的方法

bull The relationship between logic and argumentation is more complicated mainly because there are different theories of argumentation

bull Those theories reconstruct the ways in which we use arguments Argumentation theories concentrate then on relationships between arguments on comparing them and on bigger structures consisting of many arguments They say much less about how concrete arguments are built As regards this issue two stances are possible

bull For a long time the two ldquologicsrdquomdash formal symbolic logic and argumentation theory mdash have been developing separately in reciprocal incomprehension if not in an open clash (Sartor 1994)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 78: 证据与法律推理

78

法律推理的方法

bull According to the first represented eg by R Alexy18 arguments should be built in compliance with the rules of logic From this perspective logic and argumentation are complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 79: 证据与法律推理

79

法律推理的方法

bull The second stance ndash exemplified in Ch Perelmanrsquos new rhetoric ndash says that the arguments used in complex argumentation structures do not have to be logically correct This does not mean however that Perelman regards logic as useless Logical schemata may serve as a special kind of topoi

bull Moreover many of the classical legal topoi that play a crucial role in rhetorical argumentation as for instance argumentum a fortiori or a contrario can be regarded as logically valid arguments Nevertheless logically invalid arguments can also be rhetorically effective Therefore in Perelmanrsquos conception logic does not occupy any special position and is only a possible source of topoi Argumentation and logic are not on this account complementary

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 80: 证据与法律推理

80

法律推理的方法

1 The Latin phrase argumentum a fortiori denotes argument from [the] stronger [reason] For example if it has been established that a person is deceased then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing

2 In logic an argumentum e contrario (Latin appeal from the contrary or argument based on the contrary) denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case It the opposite of the analogy Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws Although it might be used as a logical fallacy arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 81: 证据与法律推理

81

法律推理的方法

bull Informal analytic methods can also be reconciled with argumentation theories For instance economic analysis can serve both to build arguments and to provide us with criteria for evaluating complex argumentation structures It must be admitted however that the relationship between analysis and argumentation is not inevitable

bull As already observed the main aim of argumentation theories is to explain how different arguments are to be compared with others and measured the problem of constructing arguments fundamental from the point of view of logic and analysis is not that important for argumentation theories

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 82: 证据与法律推理

82

法律推理的方法

bull It should be added however that in contemporary legal theory some attention is paid to the structural features of argumentation resulting in the development of logics which take into account aspects of the process of argumentation on the one hand and create informal ldquologics of argumentationrdquo on the other

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 83: 证据与法律推理

83

法律推理的方法bull It seems at least at first sight that analysis has nothing to do

with hermeneutics It turns out however that even those two methods are linked in various ways

bull One example can be found in analytical hermeneutics This is connected with the ldquolaterrdquo philosophy of L Wittgenstein Many analyses of ldquolanguage gamesrdquo presented by Wittgenstein resemble the methods and results of hermeneutic philosophy

bull Among the ldquoanalytic hermeneutic philosophersrdquo one usually mentions GH von Wright P Winch and WH Dray Also some legal-theoretic works have an analytical- hermeneutic character like for instance Das Verstehen von Rechtstexten by Hruschka or some of Aarniorsquos works

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 84: 证据与法律推理

84

法律推理的方法

bull Analytical hermeneutics cannot be easily classified as one of the two types of hermeneutics methodological or phenomenological

bull It is much closer of course to the methodological type (方法诠释学) which puts text and the problem of its interpretation in the central place

bull However phenomenological hermeneutics (现象诠释学) which proposes an alternative-to-traditional ontology does not have to contradict analysis either One of the main representatives of hermeneutics A Kaufmann( 考夫曼) paraphrased a well known phrase of Kantrsquos claiming that ldquoAnalysis without hermeneutics is empty while hermeneutics without analysis is blindrdquo

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 85: 证据与法律推理

85

法律推理的方法

bull Some interaction although not as clearly visible as those mentioned above can be traced ldquoin-betweenrdquo hermeneutics and logic and hermeneutics and argumentation The existence of such interaction should not be surprising for all the four methods are accounts of the same phenomenon human reasoning

bull On the other hand the existence of some similarities and ldquocommon groundsrdquo between logic analysis argumentation and hermeneutics does not mean that we can speak of one theory Although we are considering four attempts to account for the same phenomenon those attempts are drawn from diametrically different perspectives

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 86: 证据与法律推理

86

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 87: 证据与法律推理

87

什么是眼架方法

bull IRAC (pronounced EYE-rack) is an acronym that generally stands for Issue Relevant law Application to facts and Conclusion

bull It functions as a methodology for legal analysis bull The IRAC format is mostly used in hypothetical questions in

law school and bar exams

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 88: 证据与法律推理

88

什么是眼架方法

1 Issuebull The IRAC starts with a statement of the Issue or question at

hand In the issue section of an IRAC it is important to state exactly what the question of law is

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 89: 证据与法律推理

89

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull The Rules section of an IRAC follows the statement of the issue

at hand bull The rule section of an IRAC is the statement of the rules

pertinent in deciding the issue stated bull Rules in a common law jurisdiction derive from court case

precedent and statute bull The information included in the rules section depends heavily

on the specificity of the question at hand bull If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to

include rules specific to that jurisdiction

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 90: 证据与法律推理

90

什么是眼架方法2 Rulesbull Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear

delineation of rules that are in holding and rules that are obiter dicta

bull This helps make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand bull The rules section needs to be a legal summary of all the rules

used in the analysis and is often written in a manner which paraphrases or otherwise analytically condenses information into applicable rules

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 91: 证据与法律推理

91

什么是眼架方法

3 Applicationbull The Application (or Analysis) section of an IRAC applies the

rules developed in the rules section to the specific facts of the issue at hand

bull This section uses only the rules stated in the rules section of the IRAC and usually utilizes all the rules stated including exceptions as is required by the analysis

bull It is important in this section to apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or does not apply in the case presented

bull The applicationanalysis section is the most important section of an IRAC because it develops the answer to the issue at hand

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 92: 证据与法律推理

92

什么是眼架方法

4 Conclusionbull The Conclusion section of an IRAC directly answers the

question presented in the issue section of the IRAC bull It is important for the methodology of the IRAC that the

conclusion section of the IRAC not introduce any new rules or analysis

bull This section restates the issue and provides the final answer

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 93: 证据与法律推理

93

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull MIRAT (Material Facts Issues Rules Application Tentative

Conclusion)bull IDAR (Issues Doctrine Application Result)bull CRAAC (Conclusion Rules Analogous Case (if applicable)

Application Conclusion This is mostly used for writing assignments

bull CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

bull TREACC (Topic Rule Explanation Analysis Counterarguments Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 94: 证据与法律推理

94

什么是眼架方法

Variationsbull TRIAccC (Topic Rule Issues Analysis [cases conclusion]

Conclusion)bull CRuPAC (Conclusion Rule Proof Analysis Conclusion)bull ILAC (Issue Law Application Conclusion)bull CIRAC (Conclusion Issue Rules Application Conclusion)bull IPAAC (Issue Principle Authority Application Conclusion)bull IRREAC (Issue Rule Rule Explanation Application

Conclusion)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 95: 证据与法律推理

95

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull IRAC has many proponents and opponents bull The main arguments of the proponents of the IRAC

methodology say it reduces legal reasoning to the application of a formula that helps organize the legal analysis

bull Since an organized legal analysis is easier to follow and reduces errors in reasoning therefore the proponents argue that the IRAC is a very useful tool

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 96: 证据与法律推理

96

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The opponents of the IRAC fall into two categoriesbull The first category are those who object to using an IRAC

because of its strict and unwieldy format bull Most of these critics offer an alternative version of the IRAC

such as MIRAT IDAR CREAC TREACC CRuPAC ISAAC and ILAC

bull Each new iteration is supposed to cure the defects of the IRAC and offer more or less freedom depending upon the format

bull A very good example of such an alternative format is the CREAC which is said to offer more clarity and congruity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

CREAC (Conclusion Rules Explanation Application Conclusion)

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 97: 证据与法律推理

97

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull They argue this based upon the repetition of the conclusion in

the beginning and the end which is said to leave no doubt as to the final answer and offer congruity to the overall reasoning

bull It also has an explanation of the rules section which helps delineate rules into stating the rules and explaining the rules for further clarity

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 98: 证据与法律推理

98

什么是眼架方法

Criticismbull The second category of critics of the IRAC say that it tends

to lead to overwriting and oversimplifying the complexity of proper legal analysis

bull This group believes that a good legal analysis consists of a thoughtful careful well researched essay that is written in a format most amiable to the writer

bull The importance of an open format amiable to the writer is supposed to let the legal reasoners concentrate on expressing their argument to the best of their abilities instead of concentrating on adhering to a strict format that reduces this focus

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 99: 证据与法律推理

99

什么是眼架方法

bull 熊明辉 IRAC 方法及其逻辑辩护山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版) 2010 年第 6 期

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 100: 证据与法律推理

100

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

I Legal Reasoning - Generallybull All legal reasoning follows one path No legal argument can

be accepted or rejected without all of the following piecesbull 1) Issue - What specifically is being debatedbull 2) Rule - What legal rule governs this issuebull 3) Facts - What are the facts relevant to this Rulebull 4) Analysis - Apply the rule to the factsbull 5) Conclusion - Having applied the rule to the facts whats the

outcome

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 101: 证据与法律推理

101

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull The issue is the legal issue It doesnt ask just any interesting

question It only asks whether THE LAW has anything to say about a particular topic

bull A classic example of this is a potential legal client who comes in and says that her boss is mean and rude -- he yells and screams and makes work wholly unpleasant

bull The client wants to know if she has a claim I already know that there is no law (no rule) that generally prohibits a boss from being a jerk

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 102: 证据与法律推理

102

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 1) Issuebull However experience tells me that the question should be

Is this boss engaging in conduct which is unlawful discrimination

bull (For those of you with quick logical minds yes this means there are forms of lawful discrimination)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 103: 证据与法律推理

103

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull The Rule has two important parts A lawyer a judge or

whomever has to say what a rule is and where it comes frombull a) State the Rulebull That rule says (paraphrasing) It is unlawful to treat someone in a

manner that negatively affects the terms and conditions of employment if the affected person is in a protected class and is treated differently from a similarly situated person not in her protected class

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 104: 证据与法律推理

104

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull Each of the logical pieces you can break it into are called the

elements of the rule So you could say the elements of discrimination are

① having the terms and conditions of employment affected

② being in a protected class

③ being treated differently from a similarly situated person bull Each of these pieces contain legal terms of art terms that have their

own legal rules So youd actually end up with some nesting here

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 105: 证据与法律推理

105

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull The law is based on existing rules Even when a decision is based

upon what is fair (which isnt that often) its because theres a rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness

bull And there are so many rules that no one can know them all So an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which rule is being relied upon As youve seen already this presents a variety of challenges

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 106: 证据与法律推理

106

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull If the lawyer provides the wrong law she can lose the case (or the

legal analysis) even if in the cosmos she should have won (ie theres a law out there that gives her the result she wants)

bull The law has mistakes in it so the lawyer has to cite the law that exists and then provide some sort of annotation that explains why its a mistake andor where the mistake is

bull Like the Web there are lots of versions of the same or similar things Youll see this in case law

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 107: 证据与法律推理

107

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull There can be lots of decisions that say the same thing on a

particular issue bull There are often decisions that cite other decisions for support bull And theres more than one publisher so theres more than one

citation to the exact same court decision bull Within certain boundaries any of these citations might be used

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 108: 证据与法律推理

108

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

① 42 USC Section 2000e(a)(1) - the section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes employment discrimination based upon sex illegal

② a number of other sections that define a person an employee an employer commerce (in which one must be engaged to be an employer) state (because commerce must be between states to be included) etc

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 109: 证据与法律推理

109

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 2) Rulebull b) Cite the Rulebull In this example the rules are

③ McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP v GREEN 411 US 792 (1973) This is the citation for the seminal US Supreme Court decision that describes the elements

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 110: 证据与法律推理

110

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull There are lots and lots of facts that make up the clients story bull For the purpose of legal analysis we look for material facts

These are the facts that fit the elements of the rulebull So in the example we need to know ① if the boss behavior affected a term or condition of

employment ② if the potential client is in a protected class ③ if there are similarly situated employees ④ if theyve been treated in the same manner or differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 111: 证据与法律推理

111

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 3) Factbull The facts that turn out to be relevant are

① she is a woman

② she has not received a raise or promotion in the 10 years shes worked for this supervisor

③ there are men who report to the same supervisor and

④ no man who has worked for the supervisor has gone 10 years without a raise or promotion

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 112: 证据与法律推理

112

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say① being a woman means she is part of the protected class female

- FYI - all people belong to a protected class based upon sex (that is they are either male or female and both are protected classes)

② not receiving a raise or promotion is affecting the terms and conditions of employment

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 113: 证据与法律推理

113

Legal Reasoning amp IRAC

II Legal Reasoning - Explained with an Examplebull So what does this meanbull 4) Analysisbull At this stage we see if our material facts fit the law So in the

example well say③ there are men working for the same supervisor so there are

similarly situtated persons who are not in her protected class ④ these men did not go without raises and promotions so they were

treated differently

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 114: 证据与法律推理

114

目录

第 1 讲 导 论 第 2 讲 法律证据 第 3 讲 法律推理 第 4 讲 法律逻辑 第 5 讲 法律分析 第 6 讲 法律论证 第 7 讲 法律解释 第 8 讲 侦查推理

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

逻辑都是形式的吗法律推理的方法眼架方法法律五段论

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 115: 证据与法律推理

115

法律三段论

bull Legal Syllogismbull 熊明辉刑事法律论证的逻辑基础探析山东大学学报

(哲学社会科学版) 2006 年第 3 期bull 熊明辉诉讼论证诉讼博弈的逻辑分析中国政法大学

出版社 2010 年

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 116: 证据与法律推理

116

法律三段论

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论司法裁决

bull 大前提法律规范bull 小前提案件事实bull 结 论法律结论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 117: 证据与法律推理

117

法律三段论

1 传统直言三段论基础论bull AAA-1

MAP

SAM

there4SAPbull EAE-1

MEP

SAM

there4SEP

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 118: 证据与法律推理

118

法律三段论

2 命题逻辑基础论bull Modus Ponens ( MP 分离规则)

pq

p

there4qbull Modus Tonens (MT 逆分离规则)

pq

q

there4p

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

pqp

there4 q

pqq

there4 p

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 119: 证据与法律推理

119

法律三段论

3 现代逻辑基础论

(x)(SxPx)

Sa

there4Pa

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 120: 证据与法律推理

120

法律三段论

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 案件事实集

法律结论集

Legal argument

Legal argumentation

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 121: 证据与法律推理

121

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 - 2009) was a British philosopher author and educator Throughout his writings he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments The Toulmin Model of Argumentation a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments was considered his most influential work particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication and in computer science

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 122: 证据与法律推理

122

Toulmin Model

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

data claim

warrant

backing

rebuttals

qualifierground

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 123: 证据与法律推理

123

Legal logic is non-formal logic

bull Chaiumlm Perelman (20 May 1912 Warsaw - 22 January 1984 Bruxelles) was a Polish-born philosopher of law who studied taught and lived most of his life in Brussels

bull He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the twentieth century

bull His chief work is the Traiteacute de largumentation - la nouvelle rheacutetorique (1958) with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca which was translated into English as The New Rhetoric A Treatise on Argumentation by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969)

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 124: 证据与法律推理

124

法律五段论

bull Pentargument

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

大前提法律规范小前提案件事实结 论法律结论

法律规范解释集 案件事实

法律结论

法律规范集 证据集

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业
Page 125: 证据与法律推理

125

作 业

1 逻辑都是形式的吗2 什么是法律推理3 什么是法律论证

第 3 讲 法律推理 共 125 页

  • 证据与法律推理
  • 我的联系方式
  • 教学纪律
  • 目录
  • 教学计划
  • 目录 (2)
  • 本讲参考书目
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (2)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (3)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (4)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (5)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (6)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (7)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (8)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (9)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (10)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (11)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (12)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (13)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (14)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (15)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (16)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (17)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (18)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (19)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (20)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (21)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (22)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (23)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (24)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (25)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (26)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (27)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (28)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (29)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (30)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (31)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (32)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (33)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (34)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (35)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (36)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (37)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (38)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (39)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (40)
  • 逻辑都是形式的轻吗
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (41)
  • 逻辑都是形式的吗 (42)
  • 目录 (3)
  • 法律推理著作
  • 法律推理著作 (2)
  • 法律推理著作 (3)
  • 法律推理著作 (4)
  • 法律推理著作 (5)
  • 法律推理著作 (6)
  • 法律推理著作 (7)
  • 法律推理著作 (8)
  • 法律推理著作 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法
  • 法律推理的方法 (2)
  • 法律推理的方法 (3)
  • 法律推理的方法 (4)
  • 法律推理的方法 (5)
  • 法律推理的方法 (6)
  • 法律推理的方法 (7)
  • 法律推理的方法 (8)
  • 法律推理的方法 (9)
  • 法律推理的方法 (10)
  • 法律推理的方法 (11)
  • 法律推理的方法 (12)
  • 法律推理的方法 (13)
  • 法律推理的方法 (14)
  • 法律推理的方法 (15)
  • 法律推理的方法 (16)
  • 法律推理的方法 (17)
  • 法律推理的方法 (18)
  • 法律推理的方法 (19)
  • 法律推理的方法 (20)
  • 法律推理的方法 (21)
  • 法律推理的方法 (22)
  • 法律推理的方法 (23)
  • 法律推理的方法 (24)
  • 法律推理的方法 (25)
  • 目录 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法
  • 什么是眼架方法 (2)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (3)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (4)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (5)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (6)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (7)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (8)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (9)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (10)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (11)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (12)
  • 什么是眼架方法 (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (2)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (3)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (4)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (5)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (6)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (7)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (8)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (9)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (10)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (11)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (12)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (13)
  • Legal Reasoning amp IRAC (14)
  • 目录 (5)
  • 法律三段论
  • 法律三段论 (2)
  • 法律三段论 (3)
  • 法律三段论 (4)
  • 法律三段论 (5)
  • 法律三段论 (6)
  • Toulmin Model
  • Toulmin Model (2)
  • Legal logic is non-formal logic
  • 法律五段论
  • 作 业