拉德布鲁赫是德国20世纪最伟大的、影响最为深远的法哲学家和刑法学家之一。作为新康德主义海德堡学派在法哲学领域的重要代表人物,他以新康德主义哲学为基础,继承并发扬新康德主义法学传统,开拓出相对主义法哲学思想。拉德布鲁赫提出相对主义法哲学思想的目的在于,克服自然法学派的绝对价值主义的学派立场,及分析实证主义法学的绝对实证主义的学派立场,进而,探索出一条走向和解与宽容的法哲学路径。但是,拉德布鲁赫对传统法哲学理论进行革新的学术努力,似乎并未得到应有的认可,其在二战前后所显示的 “学术转向问题”,更引来许多的议论。 有些人认为,拉德布鲁赫的学术努力是对自然法学说的复兴;有些人则坚持认为,拉德布鲁赫是一贯的和坚定的法律实证主义的拥趸;还有些人认为,拉德布鲁赫的相对主义法哲学思想并没有贡献知识增量,且其法哲学思想内部充满矛盾,甚至难以自圆其说。 那么,应该怎样解读拉德布鲁赫相对主义法哲学思想?拉德布鲁赫法哲学思想的真实面目是怎样的?文章意图对这些问题进行探讨。
Radbruch is one of the greatest and the most influential philosophers and criminal law experts in German history in the 20th century. As an important representative in the field of legal philosophy, Radbruch who belongs to the Heidelberg’s school of neo-Kantian philosophy, set his theory based on the neo-Kantian philosophy, inherited and carried forward the tradition of neo-Kantian Law, and developed a positively relativist legal-philosophy. The positively relativist legal-philosophy made by Radbruch was aimed at overcoming the Natural Law School’s absolute value-doctrine, as well as the absolute positivism that was maintained by the Empirical Analysis of Jurisprudence, so as to be helpful for exploring a philosophical path towards reconciliation and tolerance. However, it seems that Radbruch’s academic efforts to the innovation of the traditional legal philosophy did not get the due recognition and even his "Academic steering problem", which was displayed before and after the World War II, has caused a lot of discussion. Some people consider Radbruch’s academic efforts as the revival of natural law, while some insist that Radbruch is a consistent and firm legal-positivist, and some say his positively relativist legal-philosophy does not contribute to the incremental knowledge, and even its internal ideological philosophy of law is full of contradictions, and is hard to be justified by himself. So, how to interpret the relativistlegal-philosophy of Radbruch? What’s the real meaning of his relativist legal-philosophy? What’re the characteristics of his theories? And what’s the significance of his legal-philosophy? This article intends to answer these issues.