國際法中的“反事實推理”：作用與局限

Counter-factual Reasoning in International Law: Roles and Limits

時間的流逝使法學家和實踐者面對兩個相互聯繫的問題，即因果關係的證據問題以及根據反事實推理，如果原先的非法行為不發生,現在看來會是怎樣的合理性問題。雖然心理學、歷史和國際關係等多個學科越來越多地利用反事實推理,但國際法在很大程度上忽視或忽略了該方法。反事實推理可增加國際事件可被感知的法律意義。反事實推理能讓我們評價因果關係，這對於在國際法律體系中伸張正義來說尤為重要。反事實推理是貿易救濟中一種有用的方法。反事實推理在評價國際法的有效性方面起著重要作用。但由於其假設性的本質和社會事件的複雜性，反事實推理只應被視為其他方法的補充。

Lapse of time confronts legal theorists and practitioners with two interrelated problems, that of providing evidence of causal relations and that of the legitimacy of counter-factual reasoning in determining how the present might have looked like if that original illegal act had not taken place. While a range of disciplines, including psychology, history, and international relations are increasingly utilizing counter-factual reasoning, international law has largely ignored or neglected the methodology. Counter-factual reasoning can increase the perceived legal meaning of an international event. Counter-factual reasoning allows us to assess causality, which is essential for meting out justice in international legal system. Counter-factual reasoning is a useful methodology in trade remedies. Counter-factual reasoning plays important roles in assessing the effectiveness of international law. However, due to its hypothetical nature and the complexity of societal events, counter-factual reasoning should be seen only as a complement to other methods.