法社會學與規範性問題的，關聯方式力量與限度

The Relationship between Sociology of Law and Normativity Strength and Limits

法的規範性問題是法學研究的核心問題，法社會學在對這一問題的處理上既有其力量，也有其限度。法社會學包括經驗法社會學與理論法社會學，後者又分為法的社會理論與社會哲學。就外部關聯而言，經驗法社會學對於法的規範性的說明是失敗的；社會理論對於現代社會中法律系統之規範性的功能主義說明與法理論的視角形成良性互補；社會哲學對法的規範性的證立有否定法具備獨有的規範性、甚至最終否定法的規範性本身之虞。就內部關聯而言，法的社會哲學可以作為理念準則或輔助性論據直接參與對規範性法律命題的塑造；經驗法社會學亦可以對法教義學進行''激擾''，或以經驗論據的方式間接或直接''影響''規範性法律命題的塑造，但無法替代或決定後者。在認識論層面上，事實與價值（規範）的二分法無法被超越，但它與法社會學能否處理規範性問題無關，因而是一個被錯置的批判起點。

"The problem of normativity of law is the core issue of legal research. Sociology of law has both its strength and limits when dealing with this issue. Sociology of law can be divided into empirical sociology of law and theoretical sociology of law, and the latter is further divided into social theory of law and social philosophy of law. As to the external perspective, empirical sociology of law fails to explain the normative nature of law; social theory through its functionalist explanation of the normative nature of legal system in modern society constitutes a benign complement to the perspective of legal theory; social philosophy with its normative justification of law has a risk that may lead to deny the unique normativity of law, even the normativity of law itself. As to internal perspective, the social philosophy of law can be used as an ideal criterion or auxiliary argument to shaping of normative legal propositions directly; the empirical sociology of law can also“disturb”legal dogmatics, or“influence”indirectly or directly the shaping of normative legal propositions as empirical arguments, but it cannot replace or determine them. In epistemology, the dichotomy between facts and values(norms)cannot be overcome, but it has nothing to do with the question whether sociology of law can deal with the problem of normativity, so it is a misleading starting point for criticism."