（法理词典—小K译博之一）法律理论、法理学与法律哲学
此博客为lsolum法律理论博客的一个分支，专门探讨法理中最为基础的概念，所以名为法理学词典。这个博客对于初入门径者尤其有帮助。既可以一窥法理堂奥，有可为进一步研习法理学打下扎实的基础，kid将从其中选出一部分自以为比较关键的词条进行翻译，希望对法律之窗诸位有所帮助。也请批评指正！这个词条涉及三个概念的区分，作者似乎没有对德国的传统加以考察，德国的“法哲学”一词却是较“法理学”起源要早，他们的法哲学主要与自然法传统相关联。而法理学在德文中对应的词（Jurisprudenze）在早期，仅仅是一般的“法学”之意，自晚近的奥斯丁的影响，德国才有将法律基础理论称为法理学的做法，且这一指称具有价值无涉的形式法理论之意。这一点，不可不察。作者分析的路径相当特别，以知识社会学方法分析这三个概念，倒也是独辟蹊径！
来源：legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.com/2005/05/legal-theory-lexicon-044-legal-theory.html
（小K译博—法理词典）法律理论、法理学与法律哲学
Legal Theory, Jurisprudence, and the Philosophy of Law
导言
Introduction
法理词典系列经常会解析法律理论、法理学与法律哲学里面的诸多概念。但是“法律理论”、“法理学”与“法律哲学”究竟代表怎么的学科领域，它们之间又存在何种联系呢？“法理学”与“法律哲学”是同义词？抑或是相互重叠而又互相分离的学科领域？“法律理论”的范围究竟是比“法理学”大，还是更小？而我们又为何要关注这几个术语呢？
The Legal Theory Lexicon series usually explicates some concept in legal theory, jurisprudence, or philosophy of law. But what are those fields and how do they relate to each other? Is “jurisprudence” a synonym for “philosophy of law” or are these two overlapping but distinct fields? Is “legal theory” broader or narrower than jurisprudence? And why should we care about this terminology?
一如既往，法理词典系列里面的这个条目是为了法科学子，尤其是那些初入门径而又对法理颇有兴趣者所编写的。
As always, this entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon series is aimed at law students, especially first-year law students with an interest in legal theory.
谁在乎这几个术语
Who Cares About Terminology
为什么我们在乎这几个术语？谁在乎“法理学”、“法律哲学”或者“法律理论”的标签贴的究竟是什么？当然，有一种看法认为我们根本毋需在乎这些东西。需要我们在深层次上关注的是法律理论建构中的实质内容（substance of theorizing about law）。然而，除此之外的一些原因说明了这些标签的重要性——即这些标签的使用向我们揭示了学术社会学（sociology of the academy）的一些东西。人们为了什么是真正的“法理学”争执不下的时候，这种语义学论争可能反映出它们之间围绕着“地盘”与“权威”（“turf” and “authority”）的某种冲突。
Why should we care about terminology? Who cares what goes under the label “jurisprudence” or “philosophy of law” or “legal theory”? Well, of course, there is a sense in which we shouldn’t care at all. What matters in a deep way is the substance of theorizing about law. On the other hand, these labels are important for a different reason—because their use tells us something about the sociology of the academy. When people argue about what “jurisprudence” really is, the terminological dispute may reflect a conflict over “turf” and “authority.”
学科界限与法律理论的建构
Disciplinary Lines and Theorizing About Law
宽泛地讲，围绕高层次法律理论的地盘发生论争的至少有四个群体。第一个，同时也是最重要的群体，是接受了高等教育的法律人，这些法律人的最终学历是法学，他们在法学学术界之内接受排它性的（或者基本上排它性的）法学训练。第二群体，是经济学家们——其中的部分人主要（或者排他性地）接受经济学训练；而剩下那部分经济学家则主要由法学教授训练出来。第三个群体，是“法律与社会”运动——这一运动被宽泛地定义为经由社会科学的视角（排除经济学之外）对法律进行研究。法律与社会运动的理论家接受过政治学、社会学或是犯罪学训练，他们其中也有一部分是在法学学术界接受训练。第四个群体，是以多种哲学的分析路径（philosophical approaches）——这其中又以“分析法哲学”为其焦点——作为研究方法的法律与哲学运动的鼓吹者和参与者们。相当一部分法律哲学家接受过正规的哲学训练，当然其中也有一部分只是经历了了法学或政治学理论学习。
Very broadly speaking, the turf of high-level legal theory is disputed by at least four groups. First and (still) foremost are the academic lawyers, those whose graduate-level training is exclusively (or almost exclusively) in law as it is taught in the legal academy. Second, there are the economists—some of whom are primarily (or exclusively) trained in economics; while others legal economists were trained primarily by law professors. Third, there is the “law and society” movement—broadly defined as the study of law from a social science (but noneconomic) perspective. Law-and-society theorists may have been trained in political science or sociology or criminology, but many may have been trained in the legal academy as well. Fourth, there is the law-and-philosophy movement, with “analytic legal philosophy” as the focal point of a variety of philosophical approaches. Many philosophers of law have formal philosophical training, but some were trained in law or political theory.
那么，地盘之争又在何在呢？倾向于使用“法律哲学”的论者往往自己就是哲学家，而“法理学”这一术语则更多地与法律理论化这一法学传统相联系，然而这两个术语常常显得非常模糊和容易混淆。自1960年以降，有一个同时主导了哲学系的“法哲学”课程的内容与法学院的“法理学”课程的人物，这个人物就是H.L.A. Hart。当然，例外也是有的，然而在一个相当长的时期内，这两个学科的标准课程都包括着一个核心要素，这个核心要素就是对于Hart所发明的概念的检视。检视的目标是Hart的伟大作品《法律的概念》，要么以《哈佛法律评论》为战场的Hart－Fuller论战。在七十年代或者八十年代早期，当我还是个法科学子的时候，我总是以为“法理学”或者“法哲学”是涉及法律分析哲学的一对同义词，这一法律分析哲学传统以Hart与Dworkin和Raz等人物为代表。这种法理学的“哲学化”将道德哲学和政治哲学统统收归囊中。我还清楚地记得七十年代后期在加州洛衫矶大学（UCLA）的书店浏览教科书区域的法律书架时的情形，当时Rawls的《正义论》与Nozick的《无政府、国家与乌托邦》在法理学教科书的名下赫然立在架上。我总是想象一定会有很多课程受到法理学挤压，尽管事实或许并非如此。
So, what about the turf wars? Those who use the phrase “philosophy of law” tend to be philosophers, while the term “jurisprudence” is more strongly associated with the legal tradition of theorizing about the law, but there is frequently a blurring of the these two terms. From the 1960s on, a single figure had a dominant influence in defining the content of “philosophy of law” courses in philosophy departments and “jurisprudence” courses in the law schools—that figure was H.L.A. Hart. Of course, there were many, many exceptions, but for quite a long time the standard course in both disciplines included as a central, organizing component, an examination of Hart’s ideas, either The Concept of Law, Hart’s great book, or the Hart-Fuller debate in the Harvard Law Review. When I was a student in the 70s and early 80s, I thought that “jurisprudence” and “philosophy of law” were synonymous—and that both were references to analytic philosophy of law in the tradition of Hart and included figures like Dworkin and Raz. One consequence of the “philosophicalization” of jurisprudence was the move to fold moral and political philosophy into jurisprudence. I have a very clear memory of browsing the law shelves of the textbook section of the UCLA bookstore in the late 70s, and discovery John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia as the texts for the jurisprudence course. I have always assumed that similar courses were offered elsewhere, although I could be wrong about that.
在法学社会学（sociology of the legal academy）中，哲学在法学学术之中具有举足轻重的地位，然而除了哲学之外还有很多学科间相互影响的范例：经济学、政治学、社会学，它们都具有很大的影响力。假定“法理学”这门课程被哲学家所俘虏，法律理论化的其他路径在法学院的课程表中又是如何展现它们的理论框架的呢？“法律与经济学”和“法律与社会”这两门课提供了不同于“法哲学”的可替代的选择，并且成为后者的两个主要竞争对手。此外，对高级法律理论进行独立于其他学科的法学思考这一传统从来就没有中断过。例如，尽管相当多的其他学科的分析方法参与了美国法律现实主义运动，但这一运动还在很大程度上可以被认为是法学院的产物。与此类似，批判法学研究也是产生在法学界之内的现象。有一些法理学或法律理论课程从法学观点出发，在一个课程里面独立于与其他学科地整合了“法哲学”、“法律与经济学”以及“法律与社会”。
Philosophy is important as a matter of the sociology of the legal academy, but it is not the only important interdisciplinary influence: economics, political science, and sociology, each of these also has a major influence. Given that the “jurisprudence” course was “captured” by philosophers, how could these other approaches to legal theorizing express their theoretical framework in the law school curriculum. One mode of expression was the alternative theory course—“Law and Economics” and “Law and Society” were the two leading competitors of “Jurisprudence.” Moreover, the tradition of distinctively legal thinking about high legal theory has never died out. American Legal Realism was largely the product of the law schools—although many other disciplines figured in the realist movement. Likewise, Critical Legal Studies was largely a phenomenon of the legal academy. Some jurisprudence or legal theory courses incorporate philosophy of law, law and economics, and law and society into a course that is taught from a distinctively legal point of view.
那么我们对这三个术语——法理学、法哲学与法律理论又有怎么样的解释呢？
What can we say about our three terms—jurisprudence, philosophy of law, and legal theory?
法理学
Jurisprudence
我地理解是大多数英美（Anglo-American）法学学者将“法理学”当作是“法哲学”的同义词。但这一观点并不是一致的见解。有一种历史悠久的观点认为“法理学”是非哲学化的高级法律理论——在法学之内对法律概念和规范理论进行阐述。此外，在其他的法文化中，例如欧洲大陆和拉丁美洲，将法理学与法哲学相区分的运动从来就没有取得过主导地位。
My sense is that most Anglo-American legal academics view “jurisprudence” as mostly synonymous with “philosophy of law”. This is not a unanimous view. There is still a lingering sense of “jurisprudence” that encompasses high legal theory of a nonphilosophical sort—the elucidation of legal concepts and normative theory from within the discipline of law. Moreover, in other legal cultures, for example, in Europe and Latin America, my sense is that the move to identify jurisprudence with philosophy of law never really took root.
法哲学
Philosophy of Law
“法哲学”这个短语总是不可避免地同两个学科之间的相互关系关系纠缠在一起，这两个学科是哲学与法律。在美国或是其他英语国家，“法哲学”是哲学的一个子学科，也就是我们现在称之为“规范理论”的那个哲学分支。当然，一般的哲学与法哲学有着不同的旨趣。英语国家占主导地位的分析路径被称为“分析法哲学”，这一路径可以通过两条路径加以定义。其一是Hart-Dworkin-Raz传统，其二，在更大的视野中是Austin-Wittgenstein-Quine-Donaldson-Kripke这一传统。
The meaning of the phrase “philosophy of law” is inevitably tied up in the relationship between the two academic disciplines—philosophy and law. In the United States and the rest of the Anglophone world, “philosophy of law” is a subdiscipline of philosophy, a special branch of what is nowadays frequently called “normative theory.” Of course, there are many different tendencies within academic philosophy generally and the philosophy of law in particular. Still, the dominant approach to philosophy of law in the Anglophone world is represented by “analytic legal philosophy,” which might be defined by the Hart-Dworkin-Raz tradition on the one hand and by the larger Austin-Wittgenstein-Quine-Donaldson-Kripke tradition on the other.
与分析哲学传统并存的还有其他哲学路径。这又包括了黑格尔主义、新托马斯主义、马克思主义与当代大陆哲学传统，其中当代大陆哲学传统从Habermas（与分析哲学传统相当接近）到Foucault和Derrida（这二者之间微妙的联系委实很多）。
Coexisting with the analytic tradition in the philosophy of law are many other philosophical approaches. These include Hegelianism, neo-Thomism, Marxism, as well as the contemporary continental philosophical tradition, ranging from Habermas (with close affinities to the analytic tradition) to Foucault and Derrida (with much more tenuous links).
法哲学覆盖了很大的范围。其中一条演进的线索关注“法律是什么？”这一问题，但是更为晚近的法哲学却关注特殊教义学领域内的规范性问题。侵权法与刑法领域内的道德哲学、政治哲学分析方法运用即为此类适例。
The philosophy of law covers a lot of ground. An important line of development focuses on the “what is law?” question, but much contemporary legal philosophy is focused on normative questions in specific doctrinal fields. The application of moral and political philosophy to questions in tort and criminal law is an example of this branch of contemporary legal philosophy.
法律理论
Legal Theory
法律理论是一个范围更广、更具有包容性的术语，包含了法哲学、法理学以及从其他视角出发的理论化努力，这又包括法律与经济学、法律与社会运动。依我之见，“法律理论”是目前指称法律的理论化最为中立的术语，并且它的这种涵义是被大家最广泛地理解的。它可以避免令“法理学”疑而未决的地盘与宗派之争。
结论
Conclusion
当您开始探讨法律的理论之时，您可能需要一些术语来描述您的这一活动。当您使用这些标签的时候——“我在研究法理学”或是“我是个法哲学家”，我希望法理辞典里面的这个条目能让您了解这些术语的历史及其纷争，并给您以帮助。
When you start theorizing about law, you are likely to adopt some term or phrase to describe your activity. “I’m doing jurisprudence,” or “I’m a philosopher of law.” I hope that this entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon will help you use these labels with some awareness of their history and the controversies that surround their use.
Re:（小K译博—法理莱克星顿）法律理论、法理学与法律哲学
两个小建议：其一，重要人名可译为中文，以显规范，如哈特，福柯等；其二，诸如“法律理论”、“法理学”、“法律哲学”等重要概念，应在后面附上英文原文，以便于读者群进行相关资料的查阅和考证。一个提示：“法律理论”、“法理学”、“法律哲学”这三个概念的内涵和外延在大陆法系学术界并未达成共识，而且似乎争议极大，远比上述译文的论述要复杂得多。如若深入深究三者的关系，大陆法系的理论应引起高度重视。
Re:Re:（小K译博—法理莱克星顿）法律理论、法理学与法律哲学
引用第1楼方蕾于2006-03-09 23:00发表的“Re:（小K译博—法理莱克星顿）法律理论、法理学与法律哲学”:两个小建议：其一，重要人名可译为中文，以显规范，如哈特，福柯等；其二，诸如“法律理论”、“法理学”、“法律哲学”等重要概念，应在后面附上英文原文，以便于读者群进行相关资料的查阅和考证。
一个提示：“法律理论”、“法理学”、“法律哲学”这三个概念的内涵和外延在大陆法系学术界并未达成共识，而且似乎争议极大，远比上述译文的论述要复杂得多。如若深入深究三者的关系，大陆法系的理论应引起高度重视。
谢谢师兄的批评！ 以下是小弟回应：
第一点，我还是想要辩解一下的。很多时候译名不统一，比如Austin-Wittgenstein-Quine-Donaldson-Kripke里面，这奥斯汀、维特根斯坦、奎因、克里普克自是学界耳熟能详的大师，但是这搞心智哲学的Donaldson却并不是每个人都认识，小弟若是将其翻译为“唐纳森”，则读者很可能就因此失去了进一步检索和阅读的机会了。反之，就把英文表达列在此处，读者可以看到名字的原文，也便于他们进一步寻找文献。若是碰到更为复杂的名字，比如罗尔斯弟子Korsgaard，这么复杂的拼写方法，是翻译成中文，读者就更是只能望字兴叹了。所以，小弟还是很喜欢一部分台湾学人的做法，他们的很多作品都将名字存而不译，这样看去也就一目了然了。倘将“Rawls”翻译作“劳斯”，将“Von Wright”翻译作“冯瑞”——这同样也是台湾学人的做法，那读者可就有的累了。
第二点，这三个概念在大陆确实有着很不相同的发展背景。法律哲学在德国是“Rechtsphilosophie”，其实这个词与英文“philosophy of law”旨趣很不一样。Rechtsphilosophie应当被写作为法哲学更为恰当，这个词本身（Rechts非实在法）即含有自然法的倾向。而考夫曼在《法律哲学》（刘幸义等译，似乎没有处理好这层关系）中明确地就说法哲学地题目是“正当法”和“正义”。魏德士的《法理学》，其德文书名为“Rechtstheorie”，其实这译名也有问题，应当翻译做“法理论”才是最好的。法理学一词（Jurisprudenze）在德国获得法的基础理论的影响，据说是发生在Austin《法理学讲义》影响到大陆之后的，因此主要是指形式法理论或实证主义学说。
以上观点并不严谨，凭着以前阅读的中文二道贩子文献记忆而来。请方蕾师兄指正！
可见搞法学，比如kid，不懂德语是一大痛苦（试想以中文阅读韦伯），全世界最精彩的文献中，其大半只能借别人的“慧眼”来读了。两相比较，真是艳羡死方蕾师兄了！ 哈哈,有些道理。其实最好的办法是前面写上中文译名，后面附上相关的语言注解。
Kid小弟过谦了，不过，方蕾还是希望KID有机会多学一门外语，毕竟，阅读翻译作品往往为译者所误导。 引用第3楼方蕾于2006-03-10 18:46发表的“”:
哈哈,有些道理。其实最好的办法是前面写上中文译名，后面附上相关的语言注解。
Kid小弟过谦了，不过，方蕾还是希望KID有机会多学一门外语，毕竟，阅读翻译作品往往为译者所误导。
看得我浑身发毛，不过事实确实如此。 引用第4楼montana于2006-03-10 18:57发表的“”:
看得我浑身发毛，不过事实确实如此。
montana说的没错，确实翻得很恶心， 因为就直接按照英文的语序下来了，现在校了一遍。可能好点。
以后每个礼拜翻一篇，练习英语，再则也多少学点知识。
页:
[1]