摘要
历史分析方法在宪法学的方法论体系中正日益被边缘化。与理论上的这一发展方向不同,历史分析方法在宪法学的主流知识体系中却是一种正在被过度使用的方法。全面反思历史分析方法在宪法学中的运用,对于宪法学的实践与规范转向具有重要的理论意义。历史分析方法在宪法学的运用中主要有四种面相,即语源学的面相、制度史学的面相、观念史学的面相以及解释学的面相,人们对不同研究领域的历史资料的取舍不同,对宪法学保持独立的学科地位的意义也不同。历史分析方法在运用中存在许多缺陷,不仅在一定程度上阻碍了人们对其他研究方法的运用,也在客观上造成了对制度合理性的论证过分地依赖于历史合理性,从而减低了人们对于制度的内在逻辑和价值目标的关注以及忽视制度建构中的人的理性创造力。历史分析方法仍然具有其独特的价值,不仅可以帮助人们在宪法学研究中更好地引入社会分析方法,而且对于合理界定宪法学的研究重心以及为宪法解释提供资料与素材方面,具有不可替代的作用。
Historical analysis approach is obviously marginalized in methodology system of constitution. Contrary to this trend, this approach is overused in the mainstream knowledge system of constitution. It is of great importance to reflect this approach for the transformation of the practices and norms of constitution. There are four main representations of historical analysis approach in constitution, namely, historical analysis approach of etymology, historical analysis approach of institution, historical analysis approach of conception, and historical analysis approach of hermeneutic. The choice of historical data in different research field affects whether constitution keep its independent status as a discipline. Defective historical analysis approach not only hampers other approaches in some degree, but also overly depends on historical rationality for proving institutional rationality, and hence lessens the attention of scholars paid on inherent logic and value goal of institution; make the scholars ignore hominine creativity of rationality in constructing institution. However, historical analysis approach still has its unique value. It can help scholars import social analysis approach into constitutional studies, reasonably set keynote of constitutional studies, and supply data for constitutional interpretation.
出处
《法学家》
CSSCI
北大核心
2005年第4期52-61,共10页
The Jurist
