法律解釋所為何事？傳統解釋方法的批判

A Critique of Traditional Interpretative Methods

兩岸法界在相當程度上依然相信一種傳統法律解釋的意識形態：以為解釋是以某種或多種方法，例如文義，目的解釋，尋求法律獨立客觀的意思。本文從現代文學批評，詮釋哲學，論辯（修詞） 理論，語言分析哲學，及務實主義的角度，指出法律解釋不在於講求以什麼方法，更不在追求某種更好的方法，發現或確定「法律客體」已然的意義。而是以面對未來的取向，在適用法律時試圖呈現法律應對生活的可能性及妥適。

To a great extent, lawyers between the Taiwan Straight adhere to a traditional interpretative ideology which claims that legal interpretation entails the use of a method or methods (such as textual or purposive interpretation) to ascertain the objective or genuine meaning of law. On the contrary, the author argues that the purpose of the legal interpretation is not to treat existing texts as objects to be investigated. Instead, one should abandon the illusive quest for correct or alternative methods for the discovery of the existing meaning of law, but orient himself to the effect and the adequacy of law in dealing with our life in the future.