制定法解釋中的立法意圖

法律文本模糊不清或存在歧義之際，法官應該關注解釋是否符合立法意圖，這種立場在英美法上一度居於主流地位。“立法意圖”是一個相當靈活多變的概念，在不同語境下可以指代不同的含義。實踐和學理對這一概念的討論，經常涉及意圖與目的、個體意圖與集體意圖、語義意圖與適用意圖的區分。立法意圖雖然是偏重主觀心理的概念，但卻可以經由相對客觀化的解釋技術予以辨別。法官可以通過法律文本的顯明含義獲知立法者明確表述的意圖，通過立法背景資料獲取發生學意義上的意圖，通過想像性重構的方法獲取估算的意圖，通過解釋準則獲取推定的意圖。針對立法意圖的批判表明，這一解釋方法在運作上必須注重實用方面的考慮和論證方面的融貫性。

When the legal text is ambiguous, the judge should pay attention to whether the interpretation is in line with the legislative intent, which once prevailed in common law. ''Legislative intent'' is a rather flexible concept that can refer to different meanings in different contexts. Discursions of legislative intent often involve a distinction between intent and purpose, individual intent and collective intent, semantic intent and application intent. The reason why judges should adopt legislative intent as the standard in the interpretation of law can be proved from the perspective of communication intention and legislative authority. Although the legislative intent is somewhat a subjective psychological concept, it can be distinguished by the relatively objective interpretative technique. Judges can acquire the expressed intention of legislators from the plain meaning of the legal text, genetic intention from legislative history, imputed intention by means of imaginative reconstruction, and presumptive intention by interpretive canons. Therefore, interpretation with reference to legislative intent should pay attention to pragmatic considerations and argumentative coherence.