Theoretical Foundation Building for Philosophy of Law as Public Philosophy

我们的研究旨在通过全面考察公共性概念的哲学基础和规范含义，将法哲学重建为公共哲学。它侧重于三项任务：(1)评估相互竞争的公共性概念的比较优劣，并构建一个能够充分协调它们之间的紧张关系并将其转化为富有成效的互补性的统一理论；(2)通过探讨法律概念和公共性概念之间的内在联系，提出解决传统法律概念问题的新方法；(3)阐明实体法在非理想条件下将理想的公共性理论变为现实的调解作用及其制度结构。我们的研究结果如下：任务(1)：我们发现了以下结论。首先，相互竞争的传统公共性概念可以通过…分类进行充分的表征和对比进一步将其分为三种模型：基于球的理论、基于代理的理论和基于过程的理论。第二，传统的三种模式不足以克服当代多元社会的合法性危机。第三，我们构建的替代传统模型的新的第四种模型--理性理论可以作为一个统一的理论来克服它们的局限性和缺陷，并通过阐明它们需要作为规范基础和约束的基本原则来挽救它们的互补优点。任务(2)：我们已经表明，理性理论所隐含的法律的公共性和法律的公共性之间的概念区别，以及法律的公共性与法律的公共性之间的关联，为我们提供了最好的理论起点，从这个角度我们可以阐明法律和公共性之间的内在联系，并找出在关于法律本质的概念分析和辩论中被忽视的关键规范性问题。为了说明这一点，我们讨论了遵守法律的义务、革命性的法律创造、法律的限制等问题任务(3)：我们得出的结论是，制定法只有在满足两个条件的情况下才能有效地维持和发展当代社会的公共秩序。首先，为了增强法律的公共性，法律解释和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(一阶公共性)为指导。其次，为了确保法律的公共性，法律决策的制度结构设计不仅要着眼于提高法律决策的一阶公共性，而且要充分考虑法律的二阶公共性。我们已经认识到，当代法哲学中出现的立法学(立法学)在寻找满足这些条件的有效方法方面可以发挥不可或缺的作用，我们必须组织一次新的法律法学联合研究，以发展本研究，我们研究的部分结果是在国际背景下提出的。井上在国际合著的书籍中发表了两篇论文，如下所示。井上和高川在2005年于格拉纳达举行的国际法律和社会哲学协会世界大会上提交了他们的论文。高川的论文在本次会议上发表，井上的论文将出现在吕克·温特金斯编辑的一本新书中，目前正在准备出版。在国内，Nakanishiya Shuppaness即将出版一本由所有研究人员和合作者为我们的项目贡献的书

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