不确定法律概念的个案裁量——《工伤保险条例》相关条文之展开

在法律规则体系中,由于自然语言天生的空缺结构,存在大量的不确定概念,类型分为两种：一是价值性不确定法律概念,比如公共利益、公序良俗等,其内涵与外延均不确定;二是经验性不确定法律概念,比如清晨、机动车等,其内涵清晰,但外延高度不确定.《工伤保险条例》中包含三大类不确定法律概念,“工作原因”、“上下班途中”、“突发疾病且抢救无效”,它们介于价值性概念与经验性概念之间,既要用常理对相关客体进行描述,同时又必须进行必要的价值衡量.在司法审查中,可以分别确定真实性标准、合理性标准与完整性标准,通过判决理由部分的法官解释,最终形成最恰当的结果.判断“工作原因”需要真实性标准,即员工所遭受的伤害与工作之间是否存在真实的、紧密的逻辑关联;判断“上下班途中”需要合理性标准,即分析上下班的过程是否在合理时间、处于合理路线,若存在绕道,该绕道是否出于合理缘由等;判断“突发疾病且抢救无效”需要完整性标准,既要考虑“突发疾病”的前因与工作是否存在联系,同时又要结合“抢救无效”这一后果是否客观真实.

Judicial Discretion of Uncertain Legal Concepts： Proceeding from Injury Insurance Regulations

Within legal systems, there exist a great number of uncertain legal concepts because of the open texture of natural language. These uncertain legal concepts are divided into two types. One is valuable concepts such as public interests and good morals and the other empirical concepts such as early morning or vehicle. There are three categories of uncertain legal concepts in Injury Insurance Regulations, including ＂work reasons＂, ＂commuting＂, ＂sudden illness＂ and ＂rescue invalid＂. These concepts can be understood in between valuable concepts and empirical concepts. In the judicial process, we can use authenticity standard to judge whether there is an authentic tie between injury and working to determine the authenticity of ＂work reasons＂. Likewise, we can use standard of reason to determine the authenticity of ＂commuting＂ and use integrity standard to determine the authenticity of ＂sudden illness and rescue invalid＂.