Coherence In Legal Argumentation Theory

How to judge the legal norms is valid is a controversial issue. The realism insist on the correspondence theory, they think the key to make sure that the legal norms is valid is to find the fact that the legal norms is subjected to be valid by the professional community. But, the norm proposition has the properties that you can't use"true or false"to assess it. The realism ignores the effect of the value factor. So in area of law, the norm proposition should be assessed by"sound or unsound"on the standpoint of coherence. This paper at the point of legal logic, jurisprudence, philosophy and analyzes some scholars'theoretical point of view to find the answer.This paper is divided into four parts:The first part is the meaning of coherence and its development from philosophy to legal argumentation theory. The coherence is the rational constraint of the process of justice and be a standard of the rationality of legal argumentation. The correctness of the legal argumentation requires two sides: one side is the correct judicial decisions should be derived by the valid logic, and the other side is the applied legal norm is sound. The former ask for the consistency of logic showed as interpretation of the legislation means for a linear card; the latter should have the properties of coherence showed as the mutual support structure of all reasons is the integral justification.The second part is the combine of the coherence and the legal argumentation. The aim of this part is the research of the norm's"true"and the effect of the combine between the coherence and the legal argumentation. According to the analysis of some scholar's theory, people could have an understanding about the issue. There are three coherence theories in legal field: coherence in legal argumentation, coherence in legal system, legal coherencies, which combined can analyze judicial practice well. The binary of narrative coherence and normative coherence is the premise to discuss the function of the coherence theories in judicial practice. Narrative coherence keeps the basic epistemology principles, while normative coherence reflects judge s' practical reason. Found- heretics gives the formal standard to cognize the fact in narrative coherence, while explanatory or constructive coherence in normative coherence reveal judge s' belief and ethical principles, which is not a kind of distorted pragmatism but a valid way to assemble holistic legal propositions. Hence, legal argumentation is near to the epistemological reasonableness and rational practice. The distinction of normative coherence and narrative coherence make people know the important of Factual elements'coherence as same as norm's and they are inseparable.The third part is the use of the coherence in the legal argumentation theory. The argument advanced in the background of the open system must bring the pluralistic verdicts. All of the verdicts interact and they become the formation of mutual support between the network structures. Only on the base of the network structure, people can find an accepted and valid referee conclusion. We must have a distinction between"consistency"and"coherence", this distinction is the premise of this research.The last part is the combine of the coherence theory and the Chinese justice to proof the way to complete the judge permits legislation. The judge handling the case should on the base of facts and law, and the key is how to choose the facts and law. This issue is the core issue of this paper. This goes beyond the drawback in legal research, which only takes the logic but the pragmatic in legal research.