（法理词典翻译3）“事先”与“事后”
Ex Ante/Ex Post“事先”与“事后”
If I had to select only one theoretical tool for a first-year law student to master, it would be the ex post/ex ante distinction. (Of course, this is cheating, because there is a lot packed into the distinction.) The terminology comes from law and economics, and here is the basic idea:
如果让我为法科一年生推荐一种必须掌握的理论工具，我会毫不迟疑地选择事先/事后的区分。（当然，不要为障眼法所迷惑，其实事先/事后区分之中包含了相当多的理论问题。）这一术语来自于法与经济学，以下是这个术语的基本理念：
The ex post perspective is backward looking. From the ex post point of view, we ask questions like: Who acted badly and who acted well? Whose rights were violated? Roughly speaking, we associated the ex post perspective with fairness and rights. The ex post perspective in legal theory is also loosely connected with deontological approaches to moral theory. In general jurisprudence, we might associate the ex post perspective with legal formalism.
“事后”的视角乃是向后看的。从这个观点出发，我们会提出如下问题：谁干了坏事谁干了好事？又是哪一方的权利受到了侵害？大致上，我们把事后视角与公平和权利联系在一起。法律理论中的事后的视角与道德理论中的道义论分析路径存在一定松散的关联。在一般法理学领域内，我们可能会将事后视角与法律形式主义联系在一起。
The ex ante perspective is forward looking. From the ex ante point of view, we ask questions like: What affect will this rule have on the future? Will decision of a case in this way produce good or bad consequences? Again, roughly speaking we associate the ex ante perspective with policy and welfare. The ex ante perspective in legal theory is loosely connected with consequentialist (or utilitarian or welfarist) approaches to moral theory. In general jurisprudence, we might associate the ex ante perspective with legal instrumentalism (or legal realism).
“事先”视角乃是向前看的。从这个观点出发，我们提出如下问题：这个规则在将来会产生什么影响？以这种方式作出的个案判决会带来好结果还是坏结果？大致上，我们把事后视角与政策和福利联系在一起。法律理论中的事后的视角与道德理论中的结果论（或者说是功利主义、福利主义）存在一定松散的关联。在一般法理学领域内，我们可能会将事先视角与法律工具主义（或者法律现实主义）联系在一起。
Of course, this very basic introduction to the distinction is oversimplified. For example, a fairness-based theory of torts might consider future consequences in assessing legal rules, and even utilitarian legal theories must use ex ante information when evaluating particular cases.
毋庸讳言，此类简介无疑是过于简化这两种视角的区别了。举个例子就可以说明这个问题，某种基于公平考量的侵权法理论或许也会虑及运用规则之后的效果，而即使功利主义法律理论在衡量具体案件之时也不可以无视“事后”的信息。
Why is the distinction between ex ante and ex post so important? Because it marks an important theoretical divide between consequentialist and deontological approaches to legal theory. Consequentialists, we might say, simply don't care about the question whether A has violated the rights of B, for their own sake. Rather, a consequentialist cares about the consequences of attaching liability to those who act like A did. Ex ante, is a strict liability rule or a negligence rule more efficient? Deontologists, on the other hand, care very much about who has acted rightly and wrongly. In tort law, for example, corrective justice theories of tort are associated with the ex post perspective. A should be liable to B, only if A has acted wrongly.
为何这两者的区分显得如此重要呢？因为这两个术语显示了法律理论上结果论和道义论路径之间的根本区别。我们可以这么说，结果论者基于他们自己的立场，他们并不在意A是否侵犯了B的权利。与此相对照，他们关注对类似于A的行为的责任追究所会带来的结果。从“事先”观点出发，我们会问，究竟是严格责任还是过错责任更有效率？另一方面，道义论则更重视谁的行为不当谁的行为正当。例如在侵权法上，矫正正义理论与“事后”视角相关联。只有在A行为不当的情况下，A才应当向B承担责任。
If you are a first-year law student, you might make a habit of asking yourself questions like the following:
如果你是法科一年生，你应该养成习惯，常常问自己以下几个问题：
Is the rule in the case I've just read, just or fair from an ex post perspective?
从事后视角出发，我刚才读到的案件中的这个规则是否公正？
Will the rule produce good consequences (as compared to the alternatives) from an ex ante perspective?
从事先视角出发，这一规则是否会带来好的结果（与另一可替代的规则相比）？ 不错的解释.
科斯的交易费用分析大概是结果论者(事后),事后的分析可以为事先提供论证,即事后作为一种经验被纳入事先的判断之中.事先关乎正义\道德,形式正义;事后关乎效用.不知以上解读是否正确? 引用第1楼sdwzk于2006-04-04 10:41发表的“”:
不错的解释.
科斯的交易费用分析大概是结果论者(事后),事后的分析可以为事先提供论证,即事后作为一种经验被纳入事先的判断之中.事先关乎正义道德,形式正义;事后关乎效用.不知以上解读是否正确?
sdwzk兄不愧也是狂热的理论爱好者，这解答对路的。其实说到底法律经济学（比如波斯纳）主要从事后视角出发的研究，而权利论（比如波的死对头德沃金）则是从事视角出发进行研究。
小弟看来，法律当以事先的规范性研究为主，而以事后的效益分析为辅，事后的论证只能作为事先的一部分，而不应当有完全代替的野心。林立在这一点上的批评是相当正确的，就是波斯纳在一些本来不适合经济分析的领域强行用经济分析的路数来解释，这无疑使他的理论有矫枉过正之嫌。
再多说几句题外话。其实我们可以试着（并无严格学术论证，只是一种可能）解构朱苏力强调的——“波斯纳是引用量最大的学者” 推出 “波斯纳学说很优秀” 这个命题。这一推理错误，理由在于：
其一，波斯纳的很多学说都是悖离一般人的常识（common sense）以及一般的理论上的通识的，正是这种愤世嫉俗，导致了很多学人无法对他的胡说八道保持缄默；其二，波斯纳——作为一个法官——底子里的极端右派倾向，引起很多相反政治立场者的批判；其三，波斯纳把他的经济分析方法应用到所有法学领域（甚至还包括公共生活、文学批评这些领域），那么不管哪个领域的研究者都会遇上这家伙的极端的看法，无法视而不见；其四，学术引用总是选择最极端最典型的言论，波斯纳无疑又是不二人选。
以上只是一种研究的路径，认同的同学可以写一篇大东西出来，小弟给你大大地加威望～
页:
[1]