文档介绍：1 反对解释与法治的方法之途摘要: 针对范进学教授提出所有法律并不反对解释的观点, 我认为法律解释的对象有三: 一是事实, 即通过解释赋予事实以法律意义; 二是模糊不清的法律规定, 即通过解释把不清楚的法律说清楚;三是对已做出的“法律”判断进行反思, 对不符合法律思维的判断进行矫正。所有的法律解释都必须是根据法律的解释,这是法律解释的独断性要求。从法制原则上看, 现行法律是解释的根据, 而不是主要的解释对象。“法治反对解释的原则”,反对的是对清晰的法律规定进行解释, 并不是反对对事实以及判断的解释。法律适用是一个维护法制的概念, 而法律解释的泛化或绝对化隐藏着很多瓦解法制的危险, 其中最主要的是可能淡化法律的规范作用。依法办事是法治之途中最简便而有效的方法。关键词: 法律规则; 法律解释; 法治之路; 反对解释 Abstract:In terms of the preposition that “ all the law is not opposed to interpretation ” advanced by Prof. FAN Jin-xue, this author determines that only three matters that fall within the 2 range of legal interpreting: (1) facts, . to invest facts with legal meanings through interpretation; (2) ambiguous legal rules, . to clarify uncertainties by way of interpretation; and (3) decided cases, . to correct the judgments inconsistent with legal thinking. All interpretations must base themselves on law, which is deemed an arbitrary requirement of legal interpretation. In the perspective of legality, the existing law is not the primary target of interpretation but the ground thereof. The principle that “ rule of law resists interpretation ” means the opposition to interpreting explicit legal rules rather than facts or judgments. Application of law is intended to maintain a legal system while abuse or absolutization of legal interpretation may jeopardize it in many aspects, including impairment of legal norms. “ To behave in accordance with law ” is the most simple but effective way for us to approach the ideal of rule of law. Key Words: legal rules; legal interpretation; approach to rule of law; opposing interpretation 范进学教授最近又写了一篇对“法治反对解释”命题的回应文章, 题目为《通向法治之途的方法论——与陈金钊教 3 授第二次商榷》。笔者思谋再三,不知从哪一个角度回应, 因为在范教授的这篇文章中, 指出了我的很多逻辑混乱的地方, 说得很中肯, 也很到位, 几乎使我产生了对命题信念的动摇。但仔细考虑一下, 范教授的批评有他自己的逻辑思路, 因而我不能钻进他所设置的“圈套”中,跟着他的思路进行思维, 那样的话我只能放弃命题。逻辑混乱、思维矛盾, 既然这已是范文中的“定论”,那就避其“锋芒”,转一个“圈子”, 循着自己的“逻辑”,继续论证“法治反对解释”的命题。与范教授意见的分歧, 原本就不是对立的类型, 是属于那种混合型的意见分歧。起码在维护法制、反对过度解释等问题上意见是一致的。在我看来, 我们之间所不同的, 仅在于对“解释”一词和解释对象的理解上的差异。所以, 这次论证我想从更为宏观的