Theoretical Foundation Building for Philosophy of Law as Public Philosophy

我们的研究旨在通过全面探讨公共性概念的哲学基础和规范意蕴，将法哲学重构为公共哲学。它集中在三个任务上：(1)评估相互竞争的公共性概念的比较优缺点，并构建一个统一的理论，以充分适应它们的紧张关系，并使它们成为富有成效的互补；(2)通过探讨法律概念与公共性概念的内在联系，对传统的法律概念问题提出新的思路；(3)阐明成文法及其制度结构在非理想条件下将理想的公共性理论转化为现实的中介作用。我们的结果如下任务(1)：我们发现以下结论是有根据的。首先，将相互竞争的传统公共性概念划分为三种模型：基于领域的公共性理论、基于主体的公共性理论和基于过程的公共性理论。其次，传统的三种模式已不足以克服当代多元社会的合法性危机。第三，我们构建的新的第四种模型，基于理性的理论，作为传统模型的替代方案，可以作为一种统一的理论，克服它们的局限性和缺陷，通过阐明它们需要作为规范基础和约束的基本原则，拯救它们互补的优点。任务(2)：我们已经表明，一阶和二阶公共性之间的概念区别，以及基于理性的理论所隐含的法律公共性和法律公共性之间的相关区别，为我们提供了最好的理论优势，我们可以从中阐明法律与公共性之间的内在联系，并确定在概念分析和关于法律本质的辩论中被忽视的关键规范性问题。为了举例说明这一点，我们讨论了遵守法律的义务、法律的革命性创造、法律的限制和其他问题。任务(3)：我们得出结论，只有满足两个条件，成文法才能有效地维持和发展当代社会的公共秩序。首先，为了加强法律的公共性，无论是法律解释还是立法，都必须以比现在更有原则地审议实质性和具体的公共价值（一级公共性）为依据和指导。其次，为了保证法律的公共性，在设计法律决策的制度结构时，不仅要考虑提高一阶公共性的质量，而且要充分考虑二阶公共性。我们已经认识到，在当代法哲学中兴起的立法（立法理论）在寻找满足这些条件的有效途径方面可以发挥不可或缺的作用，我们必须组织一项新的立法联合研究，以发展我们目前的研究。井上在国际合著的书籍中发表了两篇论文，如下面的参考文献所示。2005年，Inoue和Takikawa在格拉纳达举行的国际法律和社会哲学协会（IVR）世界大会上发表了他们的论文。Takikawa的论文发表在这个会议的程序,和井上的论文是发表在一本新书编辑Luc Wintgens现在在准备出版。在国内，Nakanishiya Shuppan Less即将出版一本由我们项目的所有研究者和合作者的贡献组成的书

Our research aimed to reconstruct philosophy of law as public philosophy by investigating comprehensively into the philosophical basis and normative implications of the concept of publicness. It was focused on the three tasks : (1)assessing the comparative merits and demerits of the competing conceptions of publicness, and constructing a unifying theory that can adequately accommodate their tensions and turn them into fruitful complementarities ; (2)presenting new approaches to the traditional issues about the concept of law by exploring into the internal connection between the concept of law and that of publicness ; and (3)elucidating the mediating role of positive law and its institutional structure in turning the ideal theory of publicness into reality under non-ideal conditions. Our results are as followsTask (1) : We have found the following conclusions warranted. First, the competing traditional conceptions of publicness can be adequately characterized and contrasted by classifyi … More ng them into the three models : sphere-based theory, agent-based theory and process-based theory. Second, the traditional three models are inadequate to get over the legitimacy-crisis in contemporary pluralistic societies. Third, the new fourth model, reason-based theory that we constructed as an alternative to the traditional models can work as a unifying theory that overcomes their limits and defects and rescues their complementary merits by articulating the underlying principle that they need as their normative ground and constraint.Task (2) : We have shown that the conceptual distinction between the first-order and second-order publicness and the related one between publicness in law and publicness of law implied by reason-based theory give us the best theoretical vantage point from which we can elucidate the internal connections between law and publicness and identify the crucial normative issues neglected in the conceptual analyses and debates about the nature of law. To exemplify this point, we discussed the issues of duty to obey law, revolutionary creation of law, limits of law and othersTask (3) : We have reached the conclusion that positive law can effectively sustain and develop the public order of contemporary societies only if two conditions are met. First, to enhance the publicness in law, both legal interpretation and legislation must be informed and guided by a more principled deliberation on substantive and specific public values (the first-order publicness) than it is now the case. Second, to secure publicness of law, the institutional structure for legal decision making must be designed not just with the view of improving its quality in terms of the first-order publicness but also with full consideration for the second-order publicness. We have realized that legisprudence (the theory of legislation), now emerging in contemporary legal philosophy, can play an indispensable role in finding effective ways to meet these conditions and that we have to organize a new joint research in legisprudence to develop the present onePart of the results of our research was presented in international settings. Inoue published two papers in internationally coauthored books as shown in the References below. Inoue and Takikawa presented their papers at the World Congress of the international association of Legal and Social Philosophy (IVR) held at Granada in 2005. Takikawa's paper was published in the proceedings of this conference, and Inoue's paper is to appear in a new book edited by Luc Wintgens now in preparation for publication. Domestically, a book that is comprised of the contributions by all the investigators and collaborators for our project is forthcoming from Nakanishiya Shuppan Less