本文探討使用外國法在國內進行法律論證的方法。近年一有力的觀點認為，法律移植可以被簡化為一種方法，例如目的性解釋，本文希望回應這種看法，並主張應該從本國的方法學脈絡去理解此一複雜的內國法化論證過程。法律移植理論強調，法律規範的意義無法自其所屬體系中被抽離化約為單一規則，相反地，法律體系內部往往存在著多元甚至彼此矛盾的法律要素，而法律行動者則在其知識社會網絡中與其他行動者競逐爭取解釋上的話語權。因此，國外法如何被接納、調整或轉化為本土規範的過程中，在地法律專業者的能動性扮演決定性的角色。在臺灣，法學家展現出理論上的創新，建構了一系列促進法律移植的方法論架構，使外國法得以進入內國法的法律論證體系中。此一架構反映出，理論家在基礎的方法論層次引進外國法，並以多樣的解釋方法回應移植過程中的解釋上不確定性，理論家同時轉化外國法成為推動法律見解變遷的動力來源，並且以外國法確立其專業權威。

This paper examines the role of foreign law as an interpretive method in domestic legal reasoning. It begins with a critique of the thesis that the integration process can be reduced to one single method, such as teleological interpretation, and argues for a context-dependent view on the complex argumentative process. Theories of legal transplant emphasize that legal rules cannot be abstracted from their systems and generalized into one single operative rule; instead, legal systems are shaped by diverse and even contradictory legal formants, and legal actors operate with competing individual agendas. As such, the agency of local legal professionals plays a decisive role in how foreign norms are received, adapted, or transformed into local contexts. In Taiwan, legal scholars demonstrate theoretical innovation by constructing a methodological framework that facilitates legal transplant. This framework also reflects how jurists use foreign law to assert authority over foreign-trained scholars, practitioners, and the legislature. These methodological innovations also show the bigger picture of how foreign laws are made useful for local reforms to take place in Taiwan.