Study of Theory of Institutional Guarantee---A Comparative Study in West Germany and Japan

制度保障理论研究--西德与日本的比较研究

• 批准号: 01520018
• 负责人: NAKAJIMA Shigeki
• 金额: $ 1.34万
• 依托单位: Ritsumeikan University
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 1989
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 1989 至 1990
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-01520018/
• 关键词: Institutional guarantee; Institutional basic rights theory; Institutional legal thinking; Carl Schmitt; Peter Haberle; ポ-タ-・ヘ-ベルレ

The focus of this study is to examine the theory of institutional guarantee of Carl Schmitt under Weimar Constitution, as well as the institutional basic rights theory of Peter Haberle under the Bonn Basic Act. The study tried to mad characteristics of both theories and the relationship between them, and to analyze the problems of constitutional interpretation.The study made clear the following :(1) In proper institutional legal thinking it is critically important that the legal norm should be understood "in relation to the immanent meaning of institutions and with a view of the situation of institutions in the whole legal order".(2) In Haberle's theory of institutional basic rights, "basic rights as institution" are derived from all basic rights by extracting their institutional aspect in his basic rights interpretation. This is a proper conclusion of institutional legal thinking which sees subjective rights of liberty being transformed to objective law.(3) In Schmitt's institutional guarantee theory, it has no methodological point of view by itself for the grasp of law. But Schmitt demands the transfiguration of subjectiv rights to objective law, even though it is found only in a limited aspect of the institutional guarantees. In this thinking it is observed that he clearly expressed his proper intention of institutional legal thinking.(4) Thus not only the institutional basic rights but also the institutional guarantee theories became the theory of vacuumizing, i. e. making meaningless, basic rights because of the uncertainty of the frame of the notion of "institutions" and of the scope of "guarantees". They always involve a danger of changing the liberty to one which the state determines.

本研究的重点是考察施密特在魏玛宪法下的制度保障理论，以及哈伯勒在波恩基本法下的制度基本权利理论。本文试图通过对这两种理论的特点及其相互关系的分析，对宪法解释中的问题进行探讨，明确了以下几点：（1）在正确的制度法律的思维中，至关重要的是“联系制度的内在含义，着眼于制度在整个法律的秩序中的地位”来理解法律的规范。(2)在哈贝马斯的制度性基本权利理论中，“作为制度的基本权利”是从所有基本权利中提取出其基本权利解释中的制度性而衍生出来的。这是制度性法律的思维的恰当结论，它将主观的自由权利转化为客观的法律。(3)在施密特的制度保障理论中，它本身并没有关于把握规律的方法论观点。但是，施密特要求将主观权利转化为客观法，尽管这种转化只存在于制度保障的有限方面。在这一思想中，我们可以看到，他清楚地表达了他的制度法律的思想的正确意图。(4)因此，无论是制度性基本权利理论还是制度性保障理论，都成了真空理论，即制度性基本权利理论。e.由于“体制”概念框架和“保障”范围的不确定性，基本权利变得毫无意义。它们总是包含着把自由改变为由国家决定的自由的危险。

项目成果

中島 茂樹: "「制度的」基本権理論と「制度的」法思考(『室井力還暦記念論文集』所収)" 法律文化社, (1991)

中岛茂树：“制度”基本权利理论与“制度”法律思想（收录于室井力六十岁生日论文集），堀立文化社，（1991）