법률에서의 모호성 해소: 적합성 이론의 적용
A Resolution of Vagueness in Law within the Relevance Theory
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this paper, we propose a solution for the problem of vagueness in law texts from the viewpoint of linguistics. When a legal dispute arises, a kind of legal reasoning arises that resolves the dispute by applying legal norms. However, it is necessary for lawyers to interpret the legal norms in the stage of legal reasoning since the norms are generally abstract enough to cover a variety of cases. Therefore, the principle of “void for vagueness” is required in the preparation of a legal text. The principle requires that the use of vague expressions in legal texts be avoided as much as possible, but vagueness is a property of language itself, so vague expressions cannot be completely removed from legal texts. In order to resolve vagueness, we attempt to interpret the legal norms from the perspective of pragmatics, especially within the framework of the relevance theory that is based on the cognition of human beings. According to the relevance theory, an utterance or a text in and of itself is an incomplete proposition due to the use of ambiguous or vague expressions, but it can become a complete proposition by the supplementation of information from context or by adjustment to the meaning. Once these criteria are met, the complete proposition is no longer vague and furthermore does not violate the principle of void for vagueness. In summary, we can say that it is possible to make a consistent and reliable judgment as to whether or not the principle of void for vagueness is violated in legal texts by applying the method presented in this paper.
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a solution for the problem of vagueness in law texts from the viewpoint of linguistics. When a legal dispute arises, a kind of legal reasoning arises that resolves the dispute by applying legal norms. However, it is necessary for lawyers to interpret the legal norms in the stage of legal reasoning since the norms are generally abstract enough to cover a variety of cases. Therefore, the principle of “void for vagueness” is required in the preparation of a legal text. The principle requires that the use of vague expressions in legal texts be avoided as much as possible, but vagueness is a property of language itself, so vague expressions cannot be completely removed from legal texts. In order to resolve vagueness, we attempt to interpret the legal norms from the perspective of pragmatics, especially within the framework of the relevance theory that is based on the cognition of human beings. According to the relevance theory, an utterance or a text in and of itself is an incomplete proposition due to the use of ambiguous or vague expressions, but it can become a complete proposition by the supplementation of information from context or by adjustment to the meaning. Once these criteria are met, the complete proposition is no longer vague and furthermore does not violate the principle of void for vagueness. In summary, we can say that it is possible to make a consistent and reliable judgment as to whether or not the principle of void for vagueness is violated in legal texts by applying the method presented in this paper.
참고문헌 (37)
- 김정오, "법철학- 이론과 쟁점" (2017), 박영사
- 손희권, "교육법에서의 명확성 원칙의 법리에 관한 헌법재판소 결정 비판", 헌법학연구, 13(1), pp.451~487 (2007), 한국헌법학회
- 안성조, "법적 불확정성과 법의 지배 － The law is reason unaffected by desire Laws, when good, should be supreme -", 법철학연구, 10(2), pp.61~114 (2007), 한국법철학회
- 이부하, "법적 안정성의 의미에서 명확성의 원칙", 세계헌법연구, 20(1), pp.1~21 (2014), 세계헌법학회한국학회
- 이재상, "형법총론, 박영사" (2017), 박영사
- 이준일, "헌법재판소가 이해하는 명확성원칙의 비판적 재구성", 헌법학연구, 7, pp.267~306 (2001)
- 임웅, "형법상명확성의 원칙", 성균관법학, 16(1), pp.481~498 (2004), 법학연구원
- Bach, Kent, "Conversational impliciture", Mind and Language, 9, pp.124~162 (1994)
- Baker, Collin F., "The Berkeley FrameNet Project", The COLING-ACL, pp.86~90 (1998)
- Barker, Chris, "Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics", pp.294~298 (2006), Elsevier
- Bix, Brian H, "Oxford Handbook of Language and Law", pp.145~155 (2012), Oxford University Press
- Carston, Robyn, "Explicature and semantics", UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, pp.1~44 (2000)
- Carston, Robyn, "Michael D. A. Freeman", pp.8~33 (2013), Oxford University Press
- Carston, Robyn, "The Routledge Handbook of Semantics", pp.195~210 (2015), Routledge
- Carston, Robyn, "Cognitive Pragmatics", pp.47~84 (2012), De Gruyter
- Grice, H. Paul, "Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts", pp.43~58 (1975), Academic Press
- Gutzmann, Daniel, "Grammatiktheorie und Empirie in der Germanistischen Linguistik", pp.471~510 (2018), De Gruyter
- Hahm, Younggyun, "Semi-automatic Korean FrameNet Annotation over KAIST Treebank", LREC 2018 (2018)
- Hart, Herbert. L. A., "The Concept of Law" (1961), Clarendon Press
- Horn, Laurence R., "A natural history of negation" (1989), University of Chicago Press
- Huang, Yan, "Pragmatics" (2014), Oxford University Press
- Keil, Geert, "Vagueness and Law" (2016), Oxford University Press
- Kempson, Ruth M., "Semantic Theory" (1977), Cambridge University Press
- Kennedy, Christopher, "Semantics:An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Volume 1", pp.507~535 (2011), Walter de Gruyter
- Levinson, Stephen C., "Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature" (2000), MIT Press
- Marmor, Andrei, "The Language of Law" (2014), Oxford University Press
- Morra, Lucia, "Pragmatics and Law", pp.201~230 (2016), Springer
- Pirker, Benedikt, "Making Interpretation More Explicit:International Law and Pragmatics", Nordic Journal of International Law, 86, pp.1~43 (2017)
- Poggi, Francesca, "Law and Conversational Implicatures", International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 24, pp.21~40 (2011)
- Poscher, Ralf, "The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law", pp.128~144 (2012), Oxford University Press
- Recanati, Francois, "Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language", pp.67~78 (2012), Routledge
- Slocum, Brian, "Conversational Implicatures and Legal Texts", Ratio Juris, 29, pp.23~43 (2016)
- Sperber, Dan, "Relevance: communication and cognition" (1995), Blackwell
- Sperber, Dan, "The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought", pp.84~105 (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Wilson, Deirdre, "Pragmatics", pp.230~259 (2007), Palgrave
- Wilson, Deirdre, "Truthfulness and relevance", Mind, 111, pp.583~632 (2002)
- Wilson, Deirdre, "The Handbook of Pragmatics", pp.607~632 (2004), Blackwell