合宪性解释的功能

合宪性解释的功能是由规范功能、裁判功能和组织功能构成的功能体系.合宪性解释的规范功能体现为法律规范的合宪性控制和效力维护,二者包含于同一过程之中,是在宪法框架下通过"以法就宪"和"以宪就法"的反复循环而实现的宪法和法律的协调一致.合宪性解释的裁判功能体现为对裁判结果的间接控制,遵循从规范控制到结果控制的一般逻辑.在以合...     

略论民事审判中的合宪性解释

立足于我国宪法司法化不能的语境下,在民事审判中,需要运用合宪性解释来解决一些私法主体侵犯宪法权利或违背宪法精神,损害公民合法权益的民事纠纷。合宪性解释不是宪法解释,而是法律解释的一种,也应是法官的一种宪法义务。合宪性解释本质上是一种宪法评价。本文拟就合宪性解释在民事审判中的适用条件,方法规则以及相关的理论问题进行系统性阐述,以期对相关的研究有所裨益。     

何谓合宪性解释：性质、正当性、限制及运用

法律的合宪性解释是指法律有两种甚或多种解释可能时,择取其中与宪法不相抵触的解释。合宪性解释是一种法律解释方法,更是一项法律解释要求。此种解释方法对于维护国家法秩序的统一与稳定不可或缺,其正当性源于权力分立原则下的司法自制理念。合完性解释有其运用上的限制,对于字义本身违宪之法律适用合宪性解释是对此种解释方法的滥用与误用。在美国、德国等实行宪法审查的国家,合宪性解释方法在其司法实践中得到了广泛运用。具有实效性的宪法审查制度在我国尚未真正建立,合宪性解释方法在我国的司法裁判中有无适用空间值得商榷。     

社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的方法论反思

从最高人民法院发布的典型案例来看，目前社会主义核心价值观的司法适用存在显现度不够、释法功能较弱、价值宣示色彩过浓、结合个案进行的“融入式”论证不足等问题，有必要对核心价值观融入司法裁判的方法论进行系统反思。核心价值观入法入宪后，已从纯粹的道德范畴或司法政策转变为当代中国法的效力渊源，成为法律体系和规范理论双重意义上的法律原则。核心价值观可通过三种途径融入司法裁判：作为裁判理由发挥说理功能、作为裁判依据发挥广义上的释法功能、在特定情况下作为价值冲突的解决基础。广义上的释法功能可通过法律解释、漏洞填补或法律修正三种方式实现。核心价值观融入司法裁判的前提在于，结合个案事实对核心价值观进行具体化论证。核心价值观的具体化论证以实践多段论为形式，且至少应当符合饱和性规则、连贯性规则和切合性规则。     

当下中国宪法司法化的路径与方法

法院适用法律必须解释法律,而解释法律又必须进行合宪解释,合宪解释是目前我国宪法在司法中适用的最好方式,是现行体制下我国宪法司法化的最佳路径。各级人民法院在民事、刑事和行政诉讼中审理每一起案件适用法律时都应当考虑到宪法,进行合宪解释。每一位法官都是合宪解释的主体,都享有法律解释权和宪法解释权,但这并不否定最高人民法院的最高司法解释权以及全国人大常委会对法律和宪法的最终解释权。法院通过合宪解释方式间接适用宪法,不必将宪法作为裁判依据而引用,但应当在裁判说理部分引用宪法条款。法院在合宪解释过程中发现法律明显违宪时,应当中止诉讼,逐级上报,由最高人民法院报送全国人大常委会处理。     

两种宪法案件:从合宪性解释看宪法对司法的可能影响

碍于宪法的基本架构,违宪审查意义上的"宪法司法化"在我国绝无可能。但法官作为受宪法约束的公权力主体,基于其宪法义务,有在具体案件中对法律进行合宪性解释的必要。合宪性解释并非宪法解释,而是法律解释的一种方法。而且,合宪性解释已经从最初的法律解释方法转化成了法官的宪法义务。在部门法的研究中已经有在司法中进行合宪性解释的主张与尝试。合宪性解释可以在法律解释的体系解释、目的解释以及法外续造中应用。     

宪法判断的正当化功能

对特定国家行为的合宪性作出具有法律效力的宪法判断,有助于实现基本权利的保障和法律体系的统一。除此之外,对国家行为的正当化也是宪法判断所能实现的一个重要功能。宪法是法律体系的正当性基础,通过对法律规范作出合宪判断,可以直接强化其宪法上的正当性,而即便是违宪判断,通过法律技术的运用和处理,也可以实现对特定法律规范或国家行为的正当化功能。     

“宪法间接适用论”质疑

对于宪法的适用,目前我国有学者主张放弃宪法直接适用论而择宪法间接适用论。但是,在一般的意义上,法律适用是将抽象的法律规范与具体的法律事件相联系,以抽象的法律规范为标准对具体法律事件进行评价并做出具有法律意义的决定的过程。在这一过程中,法律只能是直接适用而不可能是间接适用。作为法律之一种,宪法适用也只能是直接适用而不可能是间接适用。就合宪性解释而言,它是以宪法为标准来确定法律条文的含义,此时宪法调整的对象是法律而不是法院正在审理的具体案件,因此,合宪性解释本身就是宪法的直接适用而不是间接适用。而所谓的宪法间接效力论和基本权利第三人效力论也无法为宪法间接适用论提供理论支持。     

人民法院依宪法说理的基本属性与适用范围

依宪法说理是指人民法院在个案裁判中，在裁判理由部分依据宪法的原则和精神进行说理的司法活动。依宪裁判、直接依宪说理、间接依宪说理构成了法院依宪说理的三种实践样态。依宪说理是法院保证宪法实施的基本路径，亦是法院通过合宪性解释发现、选择和续造个案规范的论证过程。依宪说理应遵循穷尽法律适用原则，排除非解释性依宪说理模式。在适用范围上，依宪说理应限定在回应当事人的宪法主张、法律规范不够明确、法律规范冲突及法律规定存在漏洞等领域。民事诉讼案件中的依宪说理应在尊重意思自治的前提下衡平各方利益；在行政诉讼案件中不得通过依宪说理续造对当事人不利的个案规范，在刑事案件中不得通过依宪说理对被告人定罪或给予不利量刑。     

法律合宪性解释的中国语境与制度逻辑——兼论我国法院适用宪法的形式

法律的合宪性解释是近年来我国法学界研究的热点问题。德国法上的合宪性解释是指由联邦德国宪法法院主导的法律解释原则与方法,是法院行使违宪审查权和宪法解释权的产物。但是,将法律合宪性解释引入我国时,必须适应当下中国的法律解释的体制与实践,并且与我国的宪法解释制度和宪法审查制度相衔接。全国人大常委会和最高人民法院都有法律合宪性解释的必要与可能,如果割裂全国人大常委会与最高人民法院在法律合宪性解释方面的分工与合作,法律合宪性解释就不可能在法院的司法实践中发挥实效。我国法院的法律合宪性解释是适用宪法的具体体现,包括援引宪法条文说理,基于宪法的原则和精神解释法律,提请全国人大常委会对法律合宪性进行阐释并在必要时解释宪法三种基本形式。全国人大常委会根据请求原则对法律的合宪性质疑或者疑问予以回应,阐释法律合宪性的理由和依据,并且解释宪法,从而实现国家权力机关与审判机关在法律合宪性解释上的程序联结,推动我国宪法的实施。     

Punishing the Awkward, the Stupid, the Weak, and the Selfish: The Culpability of Negligence

Negligence is a problematic basis for being morally blamed and punished for having caused some harm, because in such cases there is no choice to cause or allow—or risk causing or allowing—such harm to occur. The standard theories as to why inadvertent risk creation can be blameworthy despite the lack of culpable choice are that in such cases there is blame for: (1) an unexercised capacity to have adverted to the risk; (2) a defect in character explaining why one did not advert to the risk; (3) culpably acquiring or failing to rid oneself of these defects of character at some earlier time; (4) flawed use of those practical reasoning capacities that make one the person one is; or (5) chosen violation of per se rules about known precautions. Although each of these five theories can justify blame in some cases of negligence, none can justify blame in all cases intuitively thought to be cases of negligence, nor can any of these five theories show why inadvertent creation of an unreasonable risk, pure and simple, can be blameworthy.     

The Dead, the Law, and the Politics of the Past

This article explores the role of law in cultural and political disputes concerning dead bodies. It uses three interconnecting legal frameworks: cultural and moral ownership, commemoration, and closure. It begins with a critique of the limitations of the private law notion of 'ownership' in such contexts, setting out a broader notion of cultural and moral ownership as more appropriate for analysing legal disputes between states and indigenous tribes. It then examines how legal discourses concerning freedom of expression, religious and political traditions, and human rights and equality are utilized to regulate the public memory of the dead. Finally, it looks at the relationship between law and notions of closure in contexts where the dead have either died in battle or have been 'disappeared' during a conflict, arguing that law in such contexts goes beyond the traditional retributive focus of investigation and punishment of wrongdoers and instead centres on broader concerns of societal and personal healing.     

Diversity,identity, and the indeterminacy of the size of nations

Recently economists have explored the impact of ethnic and social diversity on nation size and on the relative efficacy of the production of private and public goods. In a neoclassical framework with perfect and complete information, diversity increases the costs of government, and both the size of government and of the nation are limited. The paper proposes an alternative evolutionary framework building on the economics of identity. With imperfect and incomplete information, the relation between nation size and diversity is indeterminate, because heterogeneity plays an important role for the coordination among actors, and because political organization is crucial for the endogenous formation of preferences.      

Law,the State,and the Dialectics of State Crime

Drawing on material from a study of civil society and state crime in six countries, this article reflects on two themes from Chambliss’s work: the debate between state-centred and more pluralistic views of law, and the “dialectical” approach to the analysis of state crime. It argues for a more pluralistic approach to law than Chambliss and Seidman adopted in Law Order and Power, along with a broader approach to the definition of state crime as a form of deviant behaviour. Case studies from the civil society research illustrate how the strategies adopted by organizations challenging state practices can be understood in terms of an interplay between different forms of law. With some qualifications, we support Chambliss’s dialectical approach, and attempt to clarify just what the term “dialectical” means. Finally we bring together the two strands of the argument to propose an approach to state crime founded on “dialectical legal pluralism”.