论诸法学流派对法律方法的理论支援

法律方法理论不仅受规范法学理论的制约和支持,而且也受其他法学流派的制约和支持。不同法学流派所支持的具体法律方法不尽相同。如价值法学之于价值衡量、社会法学之于事实替代、规范法学之于效力识别、经济分析法学之于利益衡量、多元论法学之于法律续造等,都更容易产生支持效果。尽管不同法学流派各自支持不同的法律方法,但这不否定某一法律方法受多个法学流派理论支援的情形,也不否定一个法学流派可以支持多种法律方法的情形。     

A socio-legal quest: from jurisprudence to sociology of law and back again

How should socio-legal studies view jurisprudence, the legal theory of jurists? Jurisprudence's task is to promote law as a socially valuable idea taking various forms in different times and places. As a value-oriented and context-focused enterprise, it should draw on the social sciences to make its inquiries relevant in a changing socio-legal world. Correspondingly, socio-legal research needs theory to link its empirical inquiries to an overall sense of what can be hoped for from law as a social phenomenon. In different ways, jurisprudence and socio-legal inquiry should help to theorize the nature of legal practice and legal experience. They are necessarily distinct enterprises with contrasting orientations, but they can aid each other in important ways.     

刑事诉讼法学研究范式的反思

按照法律的生命有机体理论,法学者应从经验事实出发,将问题作为法学研究的起点和基础,将对问题的分析、解释和预测作为研究的归宿,并运用科学的实证方法,按照提出假设、进行论证、对相反命题进行证伪以及将得到论证的命题一般化等基本程序,组织和安排法学研究活动。为此,法学者应当对那种单纯的对策法学、引进法学和移植法学方法作出深刻的反思,并抛弃那种将理论问题意识形态化,孤立地看待刑事诉讼问题的研究方式,真正从法学各学科交叉的角度,来发现新的前沿课题。     

The Concept of Jurisprudence*

Abstract. The first part of this article contains (i) considerations as to the relationship between jurisprudence and legal dogmatics, legal philosophy, and sociology of law; (ii) considerations about the status of jurisprudence both as a meta- and an object-theory. These lead to the suggestion that jurisprudence should be defined as a general juristic theory of law and legal science. In the second part, the character and elements of this definition are explained systematically. The article's main thesis is that jurisprudence is not distinguished from legal philosophy and sociology of law by its subject or its method, but by the specifically juristic research aspect or perspective it is based upon.     

中国法理学的研究路径

各个时代的法理学是针对各个时代所面临的问题的一种思考和回答。近代西方法理学的发展进路 ,即从自然法学到法实证主义再到法社会学 ,是西方法学家对西方社会近代以来所面临的各种问题的思考和回答。中国法理学研究也应该是围绕中国法制进程中所面临的问题而不断的展开。当今中国法制实践中的主要问题是有法不依、执法不严、违法不究 ,即法的实施领域中的问题而不是立法领域中的问题。因此 ,当今中国法理学的研究主要应该围绕着怎样保证国家的法律在社会中得到合理地、正当地实施的问题而进行。从法理学研究的谱系上来说 ,当今中国法理学的研究方向主要是法实证主义     

法律方法论课程设置及教学方法刍议

法律方法论作为方法性知识、经验性知识和技术性知识,是有效促进法律技能形成和提高的直接知识来源,法律方法论课程的设置有利于职业型和精英型法律人才的培养。法律方法论课程应单独开设并与法理学及部门法学课程的关系进行协调。根据我国当下法律方法论研究的进展和成果,可选取学界基本已达成共识的法律方法类型和体系作为法律方法论课程的教学内容。理论讲授法是法律方法论课程的基础教学方法,案例分析法是法律方法论课程的主导教学方法,实践体验法是法律方法论课程的补充教学方法。     

并非有一种值得期待的宣言——我们时代的法学为什么需要重视方法

每一个时代都有自己的独特的法律现象或法律问题,各个时代的法学必须针对这些现象或问题提出新的解释或解决方案。中国法学现今的问题是:对什么是法学之“学”,尤其什么是法学的性质和立场并没有统一而明确的认识;知识生产无序化的现象;法学不能为实践提供智力支持。针对上述问题,我们的对策是:一是让法学的知识兴趣从政策定向转向司法定向;二是使法学视角返归实在法;三是法学向方法的回归。法学方法论的研究,从一个侧面为我们的法学建构提供一种观照的镜鉴,一种特殊的精神气质和建立法学知识标准的某种进路。我们可以对一切缺乏方法论支持的所谓学术创造提出最低限度的质疑。     

论法律人工智能的法理逻辑

法律人工智能的法理是"实践之法理",是证成法律人工智能实践之正当性的理据,它反映人工智能的技术理性与法律实践理性相融合以揭示法律运行的规律和特征,是"法外之理"的又一阐释。法律人工智能的法理逻辑在于辩护和证成,其价值不仅为法律人工智能提供法理解释和学理支撑,还在于规范和引导法律人工智能的发展。法律融合人工智能有其天然条件,探究其蕴含之法理是法律融合科技之法理的新命题,法理形式理性是辩护法律人工智能之法理的本质特征。法理之要义应在于指导人工智能理解和遵循立法及司法规律,符合法律任务的特征,满足法律实践的需求,定位和发挥"辅助手"的作用,最大限度地发挥人工智能的技术优势。     

再论法律解释学

本文通过对法律解释学与概念法学、法社会学、价值法学、解释学法学、立法学关系的揭示,旨在厘清法律解释学的概念及其范围。法律解释学是一个偏重方法论的学科,属于实用法学的范畴,是一种能够在一定程度上体现实践理性的法学。法律解释学把司法作为思考问题的出发点,以建构裁判规范为己任,强调根据法律进行解释是其基本方法,但它并不否认其他法学方法融入裁判规范。当代法律解释学承认制定法、法律价值、事物的本质、公共政策、良善风俗等都可以通过发现、论证、解释、衡量进入作为裁判规范的法律,都可以作为法官法源。法律解释学是以司法方法论为核心内容的实用法学。     

Setting the legal standard of care for treatment and evidence-based medicine: a case study of antenatal corticosteroids

This article argues that liability for negligent medical treatment should be predicated upon a standard of care reflecting what is medically and scientifically reasonable. Legal science (jurisprudence) and medical science (evidence-based medicine) should be reconciled to improve patient care and outcomes. The use of antenatal corticosteroids in obstetrics during the 1990s illustrates how most jurisprudence for setting the standard of care for treatment is ill equipped to meet the fundamental aims of tort law. The proliferation of evidence-based medical practice provides a unique opportunity for the law to encourage best medical practice when setting the standard of care for treatment. It is argued that, eventually, the law should recognise clinical practice guidelines as the prima facie standard of care for treatment. This will provide legal certainty, appropriate medical practitioner accountability, and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes.     

法理学还要与部门法学疏离多久——以桑本谦先生的法律解释理论为分析视角

传统的建构型法律解释学和桑本谦先生所主张的解构型法律解释学都面临困境,而从部门法制度和部门法实践的角度来看,法律解释学并非无药可救。法律解释学的发展必然是和法律制度的发展、部门法实践的发展、法律共同体的发展乃至法治的发展联系在一起的。抽象的法理学建构和抽象的法理学解构都具有局限性。法理学视野下法律解释学所面临的困境,其实质是中国法理学所面临的困境,而造成这种困境的原因就在于法理学一直以来对部门法学所采取的疏离态度。     

His master’s voice: H.L.A. Hart and Lacanian discourse theory

H.L.A. Hart’s jurisprudence seems antithetical to Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalysis. Professor Schroeder argues that, in fact, Hart’s concept of law has surprising similarities to Lacan’s ‘discourse of the Master’. Both reject a command theory of law: subjects do not obey law out of fear. Moreover, both insist that the authority of law is completely independent from its content. Anyone seeking to develop a psychoanalytically sophisticated critical legal theory should reconsider Hart. As insightful as his concept of the symbolic is, Lacan has no expertise in legal systems and does not discuss positive law per se. Although he posited a theory of ethics in his Seventh Seminar and the seeds of a jurisprudence are implicit within his theory, he offers no account of legal right, justice or what Hart misleadingly calls ‘morality’. A Lacanian jurisprudence must, therefore, be supplemented by other sources. Moreover, legal positivists should not dismiss psychoanalysis. As insightful as Hart’s jurisprudence is, his theories of legal subjectivity and linguistics are simplistic and his concept of law too narrow. He describes only one aspect of legal experience: obedience to law. He ignores what most legal actors do: Hart’s concept of law excludes the practice of law. Although Lacan’s ‘master’s discourse’ surprisingly parallels Hart’s jurisprudence, Lacan does not restrict the symbolic to the master’s discourse. It requires three other ‘discourses’. Lacan, therefore, supplements Hart. Specifically, Lacan’s fourth discourse describes the excluded practice of law and provides the mechanism by which ‘morality’ can critique law.

传承与发展:马克思主义法学在中国

在社会进步和法律发展的进程中 ,人的发展、方法论的创新以及多元化一直是并且依然是社会的关注点 ,更是马克思主义法学的时代主题。中国马克思主义法学在新世纪的基本走向是“回到马克思”。立足于民族与历史 ,马克思主义法学对“全球化”作了精辟的阐述 ,“现实的个人”是同全球化一起成长的 ,而法律全球化与经济全球化密切相关 ,在法律全球化过程中 ,特定国家和地区的法律制度受到的冲击也是必然的。马克思主义法学的全球化意义在于 :在法律改革与国际接轨的过程中 ,我们要主动适应、积极参与 ,而不能被动地适应和接受。     

医学生认知医疗损害法律制度的干预研究

为了提高医学生对医疗损害法律制度的认知水平，对学生进行针对性的医学法学教育。本文以《侵权责任法》医疗损害责任制度及相关卫生法规为切入点，采取专题讲座、开设医学法学选修课、编写《医学生医疗纠纷防范手册》、链接临床案例等综合手段干预学生的认知。结果提示，学生医学法学的认知水平干预前后存在显著差异，P〈0.01。本研究表明，有效的干预手段能极大地提高学生对医疗损害法律制度的认知水平，在学时有限情况下，案例式的医学法学教育、专题讲座、专业课与医学法学课程资源的整合交叉可以达到事半功倍的效果。建议在新一轮专业课教材的编写中，尝试链接相关的法律制度和案例，使学生医学教育与法学教育同步提高。     

国家中心主义及其法理学倾向

国家中心主义是在全球化进程中突显出来的理论反思形态,它通过主权概念把政治、社会、法律等社会关系通过其地理性的理解而渗透到各个学科当中。这主要表现在以主权和市民社会为主题的法理学研究中。某些自然法、实证法以及法律社会理论都显现其倾向。     

Prolegomenon to a Southern Jurisprudence

It is good to take stock from time to time and to see how things stand in jurisprudence. So, what is the relationship of doctrine and theory with jurisprudence? Is private law theory apolitical while public law contains politics for the very many constitutional ends in the Global South? In India, legal theorist Chhatrapati Singh very originally asked if legal systems and normative systems were the same? Chhatrapati’s enquiry was however a species of the classical approach to the law that promotes the law’s purity. On the contrary, the postcolonial approaches account for the historical life as well as the political proclivities of the law. The private law theory often seen as impersonal and non-imperial comes under scrutiny in the postcolonial approaches. Duncan Kennedy and Roberto Unger notably problematized contract theory, while Upendra Baxi argued for mass tort as public law—contract and tort are both private law—to offer, if you will, a jurisprudence of the South. A southern jurisprudence essentially rejects an impersonal reading of the private law.

     

法理学“指导”型知识生产机制及其困难——从法理学教材出发

从知识生产机制的整体视角来看,中国法理学教材还没有走出苏式法理学的框架。苏式法理学教材的"指导"型知识生产机制基于法理学与部门法学具有不同的研究对象这一基本原理,认为法理学是部门法学的指导性学科,并由此决定了"指导"型知识生产机制的运行机制;运行机制包含正面向度和反面向度两个方面,正面向度指的是法理学针对部门法学生产"指导"型知识,反面向度指的是部门法学帮助法理学生产"指导"型知识,法律关系理论和法律行为理论分别典型地对应着这两个方面。然而,对上述理论的检讨表明,"指导"型知识生产机制在运行机制层面是无效的;进一步地,该机制在基本原理层面及其理论基础层面也是错误的,因而应当被抛弃。     

法理论:历史形成、学科属性及其中国化

要破除部门法学因过度教义化形成的学科壁垒,不能走向要求法学无条件地向其他社会科学全面开放的极端,而应该深化和发展法理论研究。通过历史的梳理可以发现,科学范式的转换、传统法哲学的衰落和部门法学的内在诉求构成了法理论研究形成的背景。它发端于历史法学时期,以19世纪的法学百科全书运动为其先声,而其作为独立的法学分支学科则经历了创始、成熟和多样化三个阶段,从一开始的分析法理论逐渐发展为包括多种进路在内的宽泛领域。法理论是一门从内部观察者的视角出发,通过研究基本法律概念来致力于法律知识的一般化与体系化的关于实在法的规范学科,包括法的理论与法律科学理论两部分。它对部门法学发挥着体系构造、学说批判和知识筛选功能,构成部门法学之知识和方法的法理。当下中国的法理论研究,要在兼容并蓄的基础上与部门法学形成良性互动,提升研究的整体自洽性和一般性,加强分析法理论和社会法理论方法间的分工与合作。     

Postmodern Jurisprudence: Contesting Genres

It has become a common place of contemporary legal theory, particularly postmodernist legal theory, to reject modernist jurisprudence’s assumption of law’s disciplinary autonomy. Within this enthusiasm for interdisciplinary approaches to law, what is less common is detailed analysis of precisely how interdisciplinarity is figured, rhetorically and epistemologically, in the discourse of contemporary legal theory. It is with a view to detailed analysis of this kind that this paper emerges. Its aim is to explore in detail how interdisciplinarity might be figured, and with what consequences, in the jurisprudence of postmodernity. The particular site of this exploration will be Costas Douzinas and Ronnie Warrington with Shaun McVeigh’s Postmodern Jurisprudence: the Law of Text in the Texts of law. Published in 1991, this text remains widely influential – it has become a contemporary classic in its genre. It is not the intention of this paper, however, to represent this text as exemplary. Rather, this paper intends to read this text in its particularity, to focus on its particular vision of postmodern jurisprudence. Specifically, this paper argues that Postmodern Jurisprudence figures interdisciplinarity in terms of genre; and that this understanding of interdisciplinarity is problematised by the unacknowledged contradictions between the different conceptions of genre – one associated with Jacques Derrida and the other associated with Jean-François Lyotard – which the text invokes. This paper argues that the project of postmodern jurisprudence – as title and as label – appears rather differently if it is imagined, on the one hand (following Derrida) according to the logic of the passe-partout and, on the other hand (following Lyotard), according to the logic of the differend. The paper concludes that this internal tension should at least give us pause for thought when approaching the complex phenomenon of interdisciplinarity in postmodern legal scholarship more generally.     

“A Short Genealogy of Realism”: Peirce, Kevelson and Legal Semiotics

Kevelson remains an important figure in legal semiotics, a co-founder, along with Bernard Jackson, of the International Roundtable for the Semiotics of Law, and of course a valuable and seminal commentator on Peirce in the legal domain. This paper will examine her claim, that through his collaboration with and influence on Oliver Holmes, Peirce should be regarded as a foundational figure in a history of legal realism and modern jurisprudence, and that a legal semiotic can be identified in and not only extrapolated from his seminal writings. This paper will contend that the relationship between Peirce and Holmes should be seen as perplexed and disputatious, rather than close and directly influential, as Kevelson argues. However, regardless of its limitations, Kevelson’s historical inquiry helps provide the ground for a contemporary and historical account of the full picture of a Peircean based legal semiotic and jurisprudence.