從詮釋論辯角度──簡評王鵬翔、張永健教授的「經濟分析做為法學方法」一文

A Phenomenological/Hermeneutic Critique of Conglomeration of Economic Analyses and Dogmatic as a Legal Methodology

法釋義學的解釋「方法」及法律適用的許多概念和框架（「方法」，「位階」，「文義為先」，「續造」等等），只是習以為常的思維，須嚴加檢驗。法經濟分析，不假思索，勉強套用，極為不妥。法經濟分析的「效率」及「成本」雖不是人在生活中應對世事的主要形式或考量，這種分析的結果取向，不是法釋義學所謂的「目的」解釋，不能亂套。本文主張的詮釋論辯取向，與經濟分析或法釋義學，就法律解釋及適用而言，是各本各的前置理解，追求不同的目標與結果，南轅北轍，天壤有別；勉為湊合，冰炭難容。

In a draft article proposed by Professors Peng-Hsiang Wang and Yun-Chien Chang of the Academia Sinica, they attempt to use economic analyses developed by the Law and Economics School in conjunction with traditional legal dogmatic as legal methods, particularly in legal interpretation and application. They believe that two methods can be reconciled and in fact the former may improve upon the traditional mechanical jurisprudence. This article argues that this attempted fusion of the two different approaches is largely misguided. By juxtaposing economic analyses on different legal interpretative “methods”, the authors simply added one more “technique” to a rigid and fragmented methodology represented by the dogmatic without questioning and challenging the inadequate foundation of the latter. This article further proposes an alternative hermeneutic/phenomenological approach, largely based on some of the insights developed by Martin Heidegger, which further demonstrates the fundamental differences and irreconcilability among these three approaches based on their divergent pre-understandings in terms of their different purposes, methods, and outcomes.