疑難案件、法律淵源與法律論證

法律適用使用三段論的演繹論證形式，但真正的難點在於確定兩個前提。其中，大前提必須是一個足夠清晰、具體、可適用的完全法律規範，具有強烈的建構屬性。大前提的獲取可能存在疑難。法律淵源與法律規範是兩類不同的事物，但法律淵源的範圍直接影響大前提獲取的方法和難度，從這個角度可以將案件分為簡單案件與疑難案件。在簡單案件中，大前提可以通過檢索客觀的法源性資料獲得。應當將案例和學說的通說作為弱拘束力法源納入法源性資料的範圍，增加法律淵源供給清晰法律規範的能力。在疑難案件中，要麼法源性資料無法供給清晰法律規範，要麼法官決定廢止弱拘束力法源供給的法律規範，此時法官需要通過實質性論證，自行補充新的、可適用的規範內容。實質性論證應當遵循穩妥的法學方法，注重使用具有權威性的材料，尊重法內的價值觀和法教義學的概念體系。

The application of law follows the syllogistic form of deductive reasoning, but the real difficulty lies in establishing the two premises. The major premise must be a sufficiently clear, specific, and applicable complete legal norm, characterized by strong constructive attributes. Obtaining the major premise may present challenges. Legal sources and legal norms are distinct categories, but the scope of legal sources directly affects the method and difficulty of obtaining the major premise. From this perspective, cases can be divided into simple cases and hard cases. In simple cases, the major premise can be obtained by retrieving objective source materials. Case law and prevailing academic views should be incorporated into the range of source materials as weakly binding legal sources, thereby enhancing the supply of legal sources capable of providing clear legal norms. In hard cases, either the source materials fail to provide a clear legal norm, or the judge decides to discard the norms provided by weakly binding sources. In such instances, the judge must engage in substantive reasoning to independently supplement new and applicable normative content. Substantive reasoning should adhere to cautious legal methodology, make careful use of authoritative materials, and respect the internal values of the law and the conceptual system of legal doctrine.