首長特別費事件演變至今，焦點都被導向高度抽象的政治議題，民間失去發言或制衡的空間，讓許多深刻值得探問的價值問題，陷入無法討論的困境，但本文要追問的根本問題是：法律，對現今台灣的民眾來說，所代表的意義是什麼？是把法律看成一種限制他們行動領域的規範，對法律採取一種戰戰兢兢算計犯法後果的策略性態度？還是把法律視為一種具正當性與有效性的行為規範，發自內心對法律採取尊重的態度？算計自己最大的利益，真的就是我們人類追求理性的最終結果嗎？如何縮小這些鴻溝，或許就是我們該戮力的地方。 哈伯瑪斯認為法律取得其正當性，與溝通行動之間具有相似的結構性，所以力主引進「溝通理性」，作為法規範產生及運用的構成基礎。但從法律理論的角度來看，哈氏認為現代法律秩序要從「自決」這個概念獲得其正當性，而且公民應從論述或審議的模式切入，同時把自己理解為所要服從的法律的承受者及創制者。對於裁判理性，哈氏曾針對四種具代表性的不同法律理論見解提出批判，主要為法律詮釋學、法律實在論、法律實證論，以及Dworkin的融貫理論，最後他提出自己所主張的程序法典範的法律觀。哈氏認為現代法制史中，運用得最成功的法律典範，是今日依然相互競爭的兩種法律典範，一是形式法的典範，另一種是實質法的典範，但哈氏認為這兩種典範都有所不足，所以主張要採取言說理論視角的第三種法律典範—程序法典範，來理解與解決二十世紀末出現的社會困境。 在現今充斥「語言暴力」、「策略性語言」、「意識型態扭曲」的社會中，言說的有效檢驗，對現況的釐清確有助益，但問題是如何進行？所以，本文嘗試從理解哈伯瑪斯的言說理論為核心，來討論法律與其同屬之社會文化間的關係。同時，藉由哈氏所提之「生活界與系統界」的概念，探求法律在社會整合中所扮演的媒介角色，探討法律的生成與溝通行動何以密不可分？最後，論證法律的正當性，主要是來自以溝通言說為基礎，所達致的同意與共識。 / Since the broke out of the special funds affair of Taipei mayor, the focus has been on highly abstract political issues; the value questions, which were profound and worth inquiring, fell into difficult position and were unable to discuss. This paper closely examines the basic question: what the meaning of the law ought to be? What significant value the law should represent? Should it be an instrument or an institution; should it be developed in a strategic or communicative way; and should it be rules and regulation laid down by the authority or the normative commitment of the citizens. Habermas thought the law obtains its legitimacy through real communication and therefore the “communicative rationality” is the foundation of the law. From the perspective of legal theory, Habermas thinks modern legal order must “be self determined” to obtain its legitimacy; moreover, the citizen should elaborate and judge the making of the law through participation and communication. Habermas thus criticizes four well-known theories of law, i.e., legal realism, legal empiricism, legal positivism and Dworkin’s coherence theory. He then asserts his own proceduralist paradigm of law. Habermas believes that in the history of modern law, the most successful legal paradigms are still in competition today – one is the paradigm of the positive law, the other is the paradigm of substantive law. However, he believes both paradigms are inadequate, so he asserts the necessity of a third legal paradigm, which emphasizes the discourse theory perspective – the proceduralist paradigm of law to understand and resolve the social difficulties. Reacting to the flooding “language violence,” “strategic language,” “ideological twisting” in the society of nowadays, effective evaluation of discourse can certainly help in clarifying the present situation, but the question is how to carry on? This article attempts to answer the question by studying the discourse theory of Habermas as the core, and discuss the relationship between law and the social culture to which it belongs. At the same time, with Habermasian concept of “the lifeworld and the system”, this paper seeks to evaluate the medium role of law in social integration to assess the reason for the intimacy between legal formation and communicative action. Finally, this paper argues that the legitimacy of law primarily comes from communicative discourse that serves as a basis to reach agreement and consensus. Keywords: mayoral special funds, Habermas, legal validity, legitimacy, communicative reason, the lifeworld and the system , legal validity theory of discourse, Proceduralist paradigm of law