浙江社会科学

我们需对扩张解释与限缩解释展开必要的批判性反思。就其性质而言,与其说扩张解释与限缩解释是制定法解释的方法,毋宁说它们是制定法续造的方法或法律类推的方法。就其操作功能而言,扩张解释与限缩解释尚需依赖其他实质性或权威性论据的支持,因而并不能称其为相对独立的"解释"方法。必须谨防法律适用者打着"解释"的旗号,错误扩张或限缩法律规范的适用范围,扭曲、破坏法律。"公鸡啄眼案"和"非法占用农地案"就反映了扩张解释与限缩解释之误用。

We should proceed with critical rethinking on extensive interpretation and restrictive interpretation. As for their nature,extensive interpretation and restrictive interpretation are methods of statute innovation or legal annalogy,rather than methods of legal interpretation. As for their functions of operation,extensive interpretation and restrictive interpretation have to rely on other essential or authoritative bases of arguments,so they cannot be classified into interpretive methods which are relatively independent. We must guard against those who distort or destroy law by wrongly extending or restricting of application limitation of legal norms and meanwhile holding the flag of legal interpretation. Here are two cases which distinctly reflect the misusage of extensive interpretation and restrictive interpretation.