論辯式的類推適用模型：一個「最佳說明理論」的嘗試

An Analogie Model Based on IBE

類推適用作為一法律續造方法應如何以邏輯呈現？既有的德國法學理論仰賴演繹法的操作，外部化核心爭點使類推適用成為一純粹由法釋義學處理的對象。本文採用近年類比推理在哲學領域的發展成果，分析法律爭訟過程中對立法律論述之間存在的四層次不確定性，進而提出最佳說明理論如何可能改良原本仰賴演繹法的類推適用模型。透過新模型的提出，法律論辯可以更精確地區辨立法拘束原則的拘束效力：在促進規則一貫性的同時，我們可以在論理的融貫性上使類推規則的理由回歸到立法意旨，而達到這個意義的立法拘束力。

In German judicial methodological theories, Analogie is a form of further development of the law (Rechtsfortbildung) in cases involving statutory loopholes (Gesetzeslücke). This paper argues that there are at least four levels of indeterminacy in Analogie which reveal argu-mentative characteristics in making an Analogie argument. Current methodological theories commonly construct Analogie based on deductive models; however, this approach fails to address the argu-mentative process of Analogie. This paper suggests that theories of inference to the best explanation can better capture these charac-teristics when it is used to represent Analogie in law. It examines theories of IBE and evaluates their potential to facilitate legal reasoning. The last part of this paper suggests an Analogie model which is based on IBE. This alternative model enhances the rationale-giving and dialectical function in the construction of an Analogie argument.