学位级别：硕  士
提交日期：2002年5月10日
答辩日期：2002年5月26日
中文题名：认真对待“活法”——法社会学论域里的法律观
英文题名：Taking “Living Law” Seriously
——The Idea on Law in the Field of the Sociology of Law
中文主题标识：“活法”、法社会学、法律观、
英文主题标识：Living Law，the Sociology of Law，the Idea on Law
作者姓名：邹立君
单    位：吉林大学法学院
专    业：法学理论
导师姓名及职称：马新福教授
导师单位：吉林大学法学院
论文分类号：DF0-052
总页数：52页

论 文 摘 要

在西方语境当中，法律观念的变革经历了由自然法到实在法再到“活法”的转变。它们分别代表了自然法学派、分析实证法学派以及社会法学派对于法律的基本观点。这种转变本身体现了观察视角与思维重心的转换，即它们分别从“法上之法”、“法中之法”、“法外之法”的不同角度来理解和解释法律是什么。
我们要探讨法社会学论域里的法律观的共同性内涵，就需要从理解“活法”入手。不难看出，理解“活法”需要纳入到法治这一社会工程，而法治在法社会学上意味着诸多社会问题的解决。在本文，我们主要考虑的是法社会学的法律观，因此我们只对社会问题做出方法论上的解析，从而达致理解法治解释“活法”所展现的法律观。基于方法论上的考虑，社会问题所强调的是从社会事实出发。这一观念启发我们思考法社会学上的“法律变成什么”：不是自然法学派所理解的理性，也不是分析实证法学派所理解的法律文本本身，而是在人们的社会实践当中实际起作用的那些“规则”。所以，仅仅就法治之“法”，尤其是中国法治实践的特殊性而言，法治必须在事实与规范之间，“法”与“治”之间，就政治的、经济的、历史的、文化的等等人文因素综合考虑全盘思考。这也就是所谓法治的“问题之间”关系之体现。把握这一问题的途径，则在于人们认真对待“活法”，重新全面地理解“活法”所提供的思考法社会学法律观的方式。
“活法”这一概念是由奥地利法社会学家埃利希所首创的。埃利希在《法社会学原理》一著中称“活法”是“联合体的内在秩序”，即区别于国家实施的法律，社会实践之中的法律才是人们真正的“活法”。他摒弃了传统法律概念当中的其他因素，如国家性、强制性等，而仅把“秩序化”保留下来，作为“活法”观念的出发点。由此可见，“活法”的特征就在于法的活性、法的开放性和法的批判性。在社会历史背景上，“活法”理论的产生首先是“法律社会化”的需要，是资本主义社会矛盾激化各种社会问题蜂涌而至的结果。“活法”理论的产生就在于解蔽当时盛行的概念法学所持有的法律观。概念法学将成文法视为唯一的法的渊源。很显然，这与社会现实相左。考虑社会事实本身的“活法”观念就被激活了。
埃利希的“活法”理论从法与社会的诸多联系出发，着力阐明一种不同于以往的崭新的法社会学论域里的法律观。该种法律观所体现的应该是法社会学理论的共同性内涵。通过分析“活法”的合理性这一判断就更加明显了。“活法”的合理性就在于它是一种否定的力量却实现着常态性的法律调整。“活法”所否定的主要是实在的规则和现成的秩序，尊重人们社会行为的想像力和创造性，它所实现的调整是更加符合社会现实，更加符合人性的。由此揭示出法社会学论域里的法律观也即“活法”的法律观，更多的是在说明社会要求法律变成什么，而不是法律是什么。法律变成了一种满足人们秩序化需求的，在人们社会实践过程当中实际起作用的“规则”。在中国当下的法治语境之下，“活法”观念与本土资源论、民间法以及习惯法等概念相比较有两点特殊意义：其一，“活法”的立场是纯粹法社会学的立场，即它是以社会行为本身的事实性为出发点，不是以国家法为基本判据来评判所谓非国家法；其二，“活法”可以较好地解决被后者所忽视的理论空白——城市中的非国家法问题。
给出答案往往就改变了问题本身。在给出我们对“活法”的解读之后，我们认为“活法”所体现的思维过程，是一系列关于法律的思维、法律应用的思维等重心的转换。即在法社会学论域里，“活法”之治主要体现为法律多元主义思维、社会控制方式的变化以及社会自治问题的突显。“活法”所体现的法律多元主义思维，更多的是西方法治语境的问题。仅仅就“活法”而言，法律多元主义思维在于超越人们关于法律的思维的局限性。“活法”之治，主要体现为社会控制方式的变化。“活法”之治所揭示的社会控制方式主要在于避免从国家或政府的立场出发来考察和表达法律观。“活法”之治所要实现的社会控制方式是以社会团体与社会公众等为主体的遵循“活法”规则管理的事业。与此同时，“活法”启发我们的是，在法治实践中，法律条文数量的多寡并非是衡量法治进程的一个重要标志，国家的立法活动不是法治工程的重心。在法治之下提倡“活法”之治则可以提供一条非国家法进入国家法的有效途径，充分发挥非国家法的效用。国家在加强政府宏观调控的同时，公众的自由被给予充分尊重，从而实现更高程度、更大范围的社会自治。
总之，我们始终坚信：整个社会法治进程的推进就在于法律变成什么。“活法”所展现的法律观不仅是一种理论上的策略，而且也具有社会实践上的必要。“活法”的着重点不是在法治建设过程中何者起主导作用，而是强调立足于社会实践，力陈在国家法之外，事实上存在着大量的“活法”规范。这些“活法”规范构成了人们日常生活行为的主流，形成了各个不同的联合体内部各自相异的秩序图景。

Abstract

In the western language context, the idea on law experienced the change of natural law to positive law and then “living law”. They represented the basic standpoint for law of the natural law school and the analytical positivist school of law and the sociological school of law respectively. This kind of change itself embodies the conversion of the observational angle of view and the center of the gravity of thought, namely they comprehend and explain what the law is from different angles of the “law on the law”, “law in the law”, “law outside the law”.
If we want to inqure the inter-communial content of the idea on law in the field of the sociology of law,we need to commence from the comprehension of  “living law”. It is not difficult to see, comprehending “living law” demands bringing it into the social engineering of rule of law, however rule of law means the solution of many social problems on the sociology of law. In this text, we primarily consider the idea on law of the sociology of law, therefore we only analyse social problems methodologically, which will help us to comprehend rule of law and  explain “living law”. In view of the consideration on the methodology, social problems emphasize setting out from social fact. This idea inspires us to consider “what the law becomes” on the sociology of law: It is not the rationality of the natural law school and the law text itself of the analytical positivist school of law ,but the norms really function in people’s social practice. So, only in regard to the “law” of rule of law, particularly the speciality of the Chinese practice of rule of law, rule of law must between fact and norm, “law” and “rule”,synthesize the consideration for the political, economic, historical, cultural and other humanistic factors completely. This is also the so-called “among problems” relation of rule of law. The path of fully grasping this problem consists in people’s hard treatment to “living law” and comprehending the way of the idea on law that the sociology of law provides by “living law” afresh and completely.
The concept of “living law” is frist put forth by Ehrlich—the Austria law—sociologist. Ehrlich say in Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law that “living law” is “the inside order of the association”, which discriminate from the law that nation puts into practice, the law in social practice is just the real living law of people. He abandons other factors of the traditional law concept, such as national, compulsory...etc., but only preserves “order” as the departure ponit of the idea of “living law”. This shows that the characteristics of “living law” consist in activity, openness and criticism. On the social and historical background, the creation of “living law” is the demand of “law acculturation” frist. It is the result of the arousing of social antinomy in capitalism and the flowing out of every kind of social problems. The creation of the theory of “living law” consists in explaining and uncovering the idea on law that the widely accepted conceptual school of law hold at that time. The conceptual school of law treats statute law as the unique origin of law. obviously, this does not match the social actuality. The idea of “living law” that considers the social fact itself is activated.
Ehrlich’s theory of “living law” sets out with a lot of contacts between the law and the society and puts great effort to clarify a kind of new idea of law different from before. This idea of law should express the inter –communial content of the sociology of law.Through analysing the rationality of “living law”, this judgment is more obvious. The rationality of “living law” consists in that it is a kind of negative power but it realizes the normal adjustment of law. The “living law” primarily negate the positive rule and the ready-made order, respecting the imagination and creation in people’s social behavior.The adjustment it realized matches the social actuality and humanisty more.This discolses the idea on law in the field of sociology of law, namely the idea on law of “living law”, which explains the society request what the law becomes, not what the law is. The law becames a kind of demand for order to satisfy people and the “norms” function in people’s social practice. Under Chinese current language context of rule of law, the idea of “living law” has two special meanings compared with the theory of native resources, folks law and common law etc.: First, the position of “living law” is the position of the pure sociology of law, namely it takes social behavior itself as the departure point and don''t regard state law as the basic judgment to adjudicate the so-called non-state law. Second, the theory of “living law” can solute the theoretical blank better the latter neglected: the problme of non-state law in cities.
Giving the answer to a problem usually changes the problem itself. After giving our comprehension of “living law”, we think the thought process of “living law” is the conversion of the center of gravity of a series of the thought about law and the thought about the applying of law. In the theorial field of the sociology of law, the rule of “living law” mainly embodies the problems of legal pluralism, the conversion of the way of social control and the social autonomy. Legal pluralism embodied by “living law” is the problem of the western rule of law language context more. Only in regard to “living law”, legal pluralism consists in surpassing the localization in people’s thought about law. The rule of “living law” mainly embodies the conversion of the way of social control. The way of social control disclosed by the rule of “living law” consist in avoiding setting out to investigate and express the idea on law from the national or government’s standpoint primarily. The way of social control that the rule of “living law” wants to realize is the business, which takes social groups and the social public etc. as the corpus and follows the norms of “living law”. At the same time, “living law” inspires us that in the practice of the rule of law, the amount of legal propositions is not an important symbol when we measure the progress of the rule of law and the national lawmaking activity is not the center of gravity in the engineering of rule of law. Advocating the rule of “living law” under rule of law can provide a valid path from which the non-state law will enter the state law and can develop the effect of the non-state law completely. As the nation is enhancing government’s macro control, the public freedom will be given respect well, then we will realize the social autonomy of higher degree and larger scope.
In conclusion, we always believe firmly: the propulsion for the progress of the whole social rule of law consists in what the law becomes. The idea of law embodied by “living law” is not only a kind of theoretical strategy, but also the necessity of social practice. The “living law” does not emphasize which one has the predominate function in the development of rule of law, but emphasizes having a foothold in social practice. It states seriously there exsits a flood of norms of “living law” in fact outside state law. These norms of “living law” constitute the main current in people’s daily life and behavior and form the dissimilar view of order in each different association.