Normative Monism Of Law

Regarding legal principles,not only different schools of law have different views,but also there are different opinions within the same school.The controversy is even as great as whether the concept of "legal principles" can be established.In other words,whether the principle belongs to the law has become a matter of debate.As the main interpreters of the theory of legal principles,Dworkin's and Alexy's theories of the principles that there are differences in nature between legal principles and legal rules have an increasingly prominent impact on our academic circles,and even have become the mainstream.By systematically combing and analyzing related research results,this conclusion is even more convincing: the effectiveness and strength of the law have their origins in social facts,and it cannot be interpreted from the aspects of abstraction,reflected legal value,and application methods that principles and legal rules make a distinction in nature,and there is a difference in degree between them.Since the 1960 s,fierce disputes have taken place between legal positivism and non-legal positivism around the issue of principles.This is a continuation of the long-standing disputes between the natural law school and legal positivism around the relationship between law and morality.The focus of the debate is that whether the moral content of legal reasoning is of a legal nature.Based on the holistic view of legal interpretation,Dworkin advocates that the principles can provide the best moral justification for legal practice and they are of legal nature;the legal principles discussed by Alexy are normative expressions of objective moral values.The legal principles described by Dworkin and Alexy are different in nature from the legal rules.If the theories of principles can be established,then the "social fact proposition" and "separation proposition" of legal positivism will collapse.In order to refute this theory,different legal positivists have proposed diversified views on principles.They either identify legal principles by placing moral criteria in the rule of recognition,or they completely deny that non-pedigree principles have legal status.However,so far,we have not seen the relevant results of studying the issue of principles from a unified and coherent perspective.The use of the concept of validity norms can provide a systematic explanation of the source of the validity of various principles,which can provide a newperspective for the study of principle issues,and thus support the normative monopoly position of law.The legal effects of general laws and judgments can be traced back to the Constitution.As long as the source of the validity of the Constitution is demonstrated,the validity resource of the entire legal system can be explained.If the concept of "declaration" of the law proposed by Raz and Alexy and Horst's exposition on the effectiveness of the constitution are combined,a new understanding can be drawn: any constitutional text contains its own validity norms and validity claim.The validity claim requires officials and the public to follow the requirements of the validity norms to implement or abide by the constitution.When this constitutional text is universally accepted and forms effective control over society,the constitution is produced.An effective constitution contains the norms of the validity of general laws,and the effectiveness of the next level of law comes from the claim that its own validity is in line with the norms of the previous level.The legal system based on the norms of effectiveness has formed a dynamic legal order,which is more compatible with a diverse political society.Due to the fundamental status of legal principles in the legal system,different views on them directly affect the understanding of other legal phenomena.After demonstrating and analysing the propositions of the dual theory of principles on the moral basis of legal authority,the full realization of rights,the presupposition of ideal law and the application of norms in judicial judgments,we can draw this conclusion: The two theories of normative dualism are both one of the pluralistic legal views and their methodology.The normative univariate theory established by the validity norm can also solve these problems,and it also has advantages in some aspects.These advantages are mainly reflected in the diversity of laws in different political societies,which can provide an argument for the differentiation of many legal systems.Judgment norms in my country's judicial system all come from specific legal texts.Judges have no “law-making”authority for individual cases.This is a strong sense of norm monistic application.The idea of ??norm duality is not consistent with it.The trend of judicial reform should be a shift from a normative monolithic application in the strong sense to a normative monolithic application in the weak sense.The weak monotonic application of normsallows judges to draw judgments directly from the informal sources of non-legal texts based on the instructions of the validity norms.At least from the current situation,the idea of ??normative unity is more suitable for the actual situation,which also requires strengthening the theoretical research of normative unity and providing support for judicial practice.In summary,the theory of effectiveness norms can provide a coherent interpretation of different principles.From this,it can be concluded that a unified monistic theory can not only clearly explain the principles,but also explain our judicial practice more reasonably.