The Times of Law

In this essay, I situate Kunal Parker's Common Law, History, and Democracy in America, 1790–1900, within a broader set of intellectual currents engaged with questions of time and temporality. Although Parker's book centers on the common law and history and develops specific conceptions of time, in so doing, he invites legal historians and legal scholars to ruminate on the times of law, particularly the temporal relations that law has with itself. Placing Parker in conversation with Henri Bergson and the recent Bergsonian revival in critical theory, I suggest that law has a duration, a formulation that opens other itineraries to consider the dynamic times of law.     

先决问题的构成要件与法律适用

先决问题是涉外婚姻、涉外继承关系中经常出现的法律问题。国际私法先哲们对先决问题已有论及。我国国际私法学界对先决问题的研究,一直承袭英国国际私法学家莫里斯的理论。莫里斯关于先决问题的理论是值得商榷的。本文从理论和实践两方面入手,对先决问题的构成条件、先决问题的法律适用重新作了阐释,提出了新的观点和主张。     

犯罪客体: 曲解、质疑与理性解读———兼论正当事由的体系性定位简

通说将犯罪客体与民事、经济、行政等法律所保护的社会关系严格区分,并将之限定为刑法分则规定的社会关系的整体,是不可取的。否定犯罪客体在犯罪认定中的作用,缺乏说服力。以法益等替代犯罪客体中的社会关系,并不可取。犯罪客体具有事实判断与价值评价双重功能。法律关系是犯罪客体的重要内容。正当事由符合特定法律关系,没有侵犯犯罪客体,不能认定为犯罪。     

Directives in EU Legal Systems: Whose Norms Are They Anyway?

This article is concerned with whether the concept of a legal system—long a centrepiece of state‐based legal theories—is a useful conceptual tool in theorising the contemporary EU and its legal relations with its Member States. The focus lies particularly with EU directives, and with what the character and operation of this distinctive type of EU norm can tell us as regards the existence of and relations between legal systems in the EU. I argue for the view that the EU is comprised of distinct but interacting legal systems at EU and national level, and claim that the character and operation of directives supports this view. Throughout the discussion I try to bring the conceptual tools of analytical legal philosophy to bear on puzzles generated by EU law and its relations with national law, in order to show that a sound analysis of aspects of the EU can benefit from abstract legal philosophical reflection, and vice versa.     

Building sustainable free legal advisory systems: Experiences from the history of AI & law

The enthusiasm for artificial intelligence (AI) as a source of solutions to problems is not new. In law, from the early 1980s until at least the early 2000s, considerable work was done on developing ‘legal expert systems.’ As the DataLex project, we participated in those developments, through research and publications, commercial and non-commercial systems, and teaching students application development. This paper commences with a brief account of that work to situate our perspective.The main aim of this paper is an assessment of what might be of value from the experience of the DataLex Project to contemporary use of ‘AI and law’ by free legal advice services, who must necessarily work within funding and other constraints in developing and sustaining such systems. We draw fifteen conclusions from this experience, which we consider are relevant to development of systems for free legal advice services. The desired result, we argue, is the development of integrated legal decision-support systems, not ‘expert systems’ or ‘robot lawyers’. We compare our insights with the approach of the leading recent text in the field, and with a critical review of the field over twenty-five years. We conclude that the approach taken by the DataLex Project, and now applied to free legal advice services, remains consistent with leading work in field of AI and law.The paper concludes with brief suggestions of what are the most desirable improvements to tools and platforms to enable development of free legal advice systems. The objectives of free access to legal information services have much in common with those of free legal advice services. The information resources that free access to law providers (including LIIs) can provide will often be those that free legal advice services will need to use to develop and sustain free legal advisory systems. There is therefore strong potential for valuable collaborations between these two types of services providers.     

法的时间效力界限与法的稳定性——以德国民法为研究视角

法的时间效力问题，简言之要解决的是，如果一个时间段上的法律关系跨越新旧法律的交替，那么旧法所规定的法律效力是否、在何种程度上继续发生效力；或者是否应该以形式上的时间点为界限，让旧法上的法律后果丧失效力，依照新法重新做出安排。萨维尼有关法的时间效力理论就法的时间效力冲突等问题进行了详尽的分析，在德国民法上，针对不同的法律关系诸如物权、债权以及婚姻家庭关系等，在法的时间效力方面设定了不同的规则。随着我国《物权法》、《侵权责任法》等几部重要法律的颁布，施行过程中新旧法律冲突的问题不断出现，目前中国民法典的制定也已经提上日程，民事法律的时间效力问题将会是立法者和学者都无法回避的重要问题之一，德国法的相关理论与规定可资借鉴。     

The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now

Abstract: The sovereignty issue in European law, which was recently raised again before the highest national courts, poses a challenge to legal theory. The supremacy of EC law should not be regarded as imposing a strict hierarchy within a monistic legal system. A pluralistic and interactive analysis of the relations between the legal systems of the Member States and their common system of EC law suggests instead that the highest court within each system retains interpretative competence-competence. Although pluralist legal theory therefore supports the claim that sovereignty has not passed to the organs of the Union, the same analysis confirms that sovereignty has not remained with the individual Member States either: a more subtle understanding of the meaning of sovereignty and its locus is necessary.     

论科学证据、专家证言、鉴定意见三者的关系

与科学证据有关的法律概念主要有大陆法的鉴定意见,以及英美法国家的专家证言。鉴定意见与专家证言之间,由于具有不同的证据法原理,不具有可比性。在英美法国家,科学证据应是专家证言的下位概念;在大陆法国家,科学证据与鉴定意见之间的关系,与鉴定的法律定位密切相关,要具体国家具体分析。明确这一点,有利于厘清我国科学证据的相关法律定位及其与鉴定意见之间的关系。     

我国行政法实体法的突破与瞻望——评《中华人民共和国公务员法》

《中华人民共和国公务员法》的颁布是我国行政实体立法的一大突破:该法开始了行政法从程序到实体的转型;将行政法调整对象由外部行政关系向内部行政关系转移,开启了法治社会的先声;尽力避免人治,实现了公务员管理的法制化。但是,该法界定的公务员范围过宽,确立的公务员录用制度、工资福利保险制度及人事争议仲裁制度有待完善。     

关于我国物权法体系结构的思考

法律的体系结构问题是一个按一定逻辑联系将法律规范加以排列组合的问题。各国民法典 (包括其物权编 )体系结构上的差异 ,原于体系设计者选择的逻辑标准不同。法国法系国家在设计其民法典 (包括其物权编 )的体系结构时 ,更注重调整对象标准 ;而德国法系国家在设计其民法典 (包括其物权编 )的体系结构时 ,则更倾向于法权形式标准。本文作者主张以调整对象为标准来分配物权法与债法的内容 ,将作用于商品交换领域的抵押、质押、留置及让与担保等担保制度纳入债法规定 ,而不照搬德国法系国家的作法纳入物权法规定。对物权法内部的体系结构 ,本文作者主张除总则外 ,分所有权、用益物权、相邻权、占有与登记四个组成部分 ,以分别调整物的归属关系、物的用益关系、不动产相邻关系及无本权的动产占有人、不动产物权登记名义人与物之本权人之间的关系。本文作者认为 ,这一体系结构有利于明确物权法内各制度各自作用的社会经济生活领域 ,张扬它们各自不同的目的和功能 ,实现它们各自不同的价值。     

论鉴定人的法律地位及其责任机制

鉴定人的法律责任是司法鉴定制度的一个重要的组成部分。从比较法角度分析在英美法国家和大陆法国家鉴定人法律地位的两种基本样式及其特征 ,比较不同程序结构下鉴定人承担的法律义务和相应责任的性质及内容 ,从而对我国鉴定人责任机制进行宏观建构。     

Legal Socialization of Children and Adolescents

Research on children and the law has recently renewed its focus on the development of children's ties to law and legal actors. We identify the developmental process through which these relations develop as legal socialization, a process that unfolds during childhood and adolescence as part of a vector of developmental capital that promotes compliance with the law and cooperation with legal actors. In this paper, we show that ties to the law and perceptions of law and legal actors among children and adolescents change over time and age. We show that neighborhood contexts and experiences with legal actors shape the outcomes of legal socialization. Children report lower ratings of legitimacy of the law and greater legal cynicism when they view interactions with legal actors as unfair and harsh. We show that perceived legitimacy of law and legal authorities shapes compliance with the law, and that these effects covary with social contexts including neighborhood. We identify neighborhood differences in this relationship that reflect differential experiences of children with criminal justice authorities and other social control agents. The results suggest that legal actors may play a role in socialization processes that lead to compliance with or rejection of legal and social norms. An erratum to this article is available at .     

我们需要什么样的民法总则--与德国民法比较

我国民法体系与德国民法体系有重大差异,根本原因是立法理念和思路不同。德国民法体系是以权利为核心构建的,所反映的法律关系理论属于“权利关系”阶段的理论。我国民法是以法律关系为核心构建的,所反映的法律关系理论属于“权利义务责任关系”阶段的理论。从立法技术上看,我国民法体系与德国民法体系有重大差异的根源在于,民法上责任的概念和内涵及责任与义务的关系有重大差异。由于《德国民法典》是以权利为核心构建的,请求权在民法中占有十分重要的地位。我国民法体系是以法律关系为核心构建的,体现为以权利———义务———责任为主线,我国民法上请求权的功能与德国民法上请求权的功能不同。     

从民族性格看日本的法制变革

在世界法制史苑里,日本的法制变革是非常显著的：古代法制隶属中华法系,近代法制则属大陆法系,而现代法制吸收英美法成分,兼属两大法系。这种法制变革与日本的民族性格之间存在一定的关联。日本是一个单一民族的岛国,在漫长的历史发展过程中,汇聚形成自己独特的民族性格：善于学习国外的优秀文化,富于模仿先进的社会制度,易于顺应最新的时代潮流。这些性格特征决定了日本法制变革的路径和模式,使日本法在当代世界的法律体系当中别具一格。     

建设和谐社会、环境友好社会的法学理论——调整论

介绍调整论的主要内容,阐明法律应不应该、能不能够以及如何调整人与自然关系这三个层次的问题,概括了调整论对主流法理学补充的四个要点,以及对主流法理学进行反思与挑战的四个基本理论领域.认为法律人是作为人与人的关系和人与自然的关系的总和的人;每个人只能通过自身与其他人的关系和自身与自然(环境资源)的关系求生存、求发展、求利益、求幸福;个人通过其行为建立和变革人与人的关系和人与自然的关系,法律既可以规定人对人的行为,也可以规定人对自然物的行为,因而法律既能够调整人与人的关系,也能够调整人与自然的关系.环境资源法对人与自然关系的调整,是指环境资源法根据社会经济规律和自然生态规律,根据人与自然关系的不同类型、特点和社会需要,设立相应的权利、义务、规则和制度去调整人与自然的关系.环境资源法对人与自然关系的调整,是一个渐进的、不断发展的过程,应该与时俱进.环境资源法调整人与自然关系的机制包括其他法律部门的相关调整机制和环境资源专门法所特有的调整机制即生态化调整机制.     

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式之比较

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式是英美法系和大陆法系在解决专门性事实问题上两种不同的模式。两者在法律文化基础、有关专家的诉讼地位和资格、程序启动、质证、证据能力和证明力上都有很大的不同。然而,由于两种模式都存在其固有的缺陷,近年来各国都在进行相应的改革,出现了相互融合和借鉴的趋势。     

我国政法教育的变迁与展望

政法教育形成于1950年代,基于巩固新生政权的需要,它为政法工作培养专门干部。与政法工作强调政治性一样,政法教育是强调政治性的法学教育,非常重视党的政治路线和组织纪律教育。改革开放后,法学教育日趋强调专业化、职业化。20世纪80年代,仍继续强调政治性。这与当时的社会治安形势及“严打”刑事政策有一定关系。1990年代以后,政治性在政法教育中日渐淡出,法学教育趋向服务市场经济的专业化。新时代的治国理政,在法治领域创造了一系列新实践,法治思维和法治方式运用深入政治领域,国家和社会治理广泛纳入全面依法治国范畴,涉外法治深度关联国际政治、国际关系。这些实践造就了强调政治性的大法治工作格局,对法学教育提出了新要求,催生了新政法教育。党内法规学、纪检监察学、国家安全学、社会治理法学等新学科应运而生,人权法学、知识产权法学等学科应需更新。新政法教育与专业化法学教育并行,扩展了法学教育的领地。     

不当得利的法律适用规则

由于世界各国关于不当得利的法律制度不尽相同,国际民商事交往中不当得利的法律冲突问题日益突出。为保证支配不当得利之债的准据法与当事人的意愿相一致或有最密切的联系,并最大限度地减小因识别或定性不同而带来的难题,不当得利准据法应依序设计为:不当得利起因于合同时,适用该合同的准据法;起因于其他法律关系时,适用调整该法律关系的法律;起因于不动产交易时,适用不动产所在地法;在其他情况下产生,则其准据法为利益发生地所在国的法律。     

论兼职劳动者的休假权——以《职工带薪年休假条例》为视角

《劳动合同法》的一个重大突破是，立法上首次明确规定了兼职的合法性，随着《劳动合同法》的实施，非全日制用工形式的日趋成熟，兼职将会在我国大量存在。兼职劳动者与所在单位建立的关系．都属于劳动关系，且是平行的劳动关系，它们之间没有主次之分，其劳动权益应当受劳动法律保护，然而，兼职劳动者如何享有休假权却出现立法空白。本文以《职工带薪年休假务例》为视角，认为与劳动者建立劳动关系的单位都应当给予年休假，兼职劳动者享有双倍或多倍的年休假期，符合年休假的本质属性，既有法理基础，又有可操作性，有利于保护劳动者的休息休假权，体现劳动法的价值目标。     

Luhmann: Law,Justice, and Time

Time is central to Luhmann’s writings on social systems. Social systems, as systems of meaning, operate within three dimensions: factual, social and temporal. Each of these dimensions entails selections of actualities from potentialities (or contingencies) within horizons. Whilst the factual dimension involves selections based on distinguishing ‘this’ from ‘something else’, and the social distinguishes between alter and ego (asking with respect to any meaning whether another experiences it as I do), the temporal dimension operates with the primary distinction of before and after. In the temporal dimension, everything is ‘ordered only according to the when and not to the who/what/where/how of experience and action’ (Luhmann in Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1995, p. 78). In this paper, we explore the connection between the temporal dimension of meaning within the legal system and its connection to justice. We begin by setting out succinctly the role played by justice within the legal system, as presented by Luhmann, particularly in his book Law as a social system (2004). From this beginning, we move on to consider the relationship between law, justice and time, taking two examples. The first is the temporality of judicial decisions. The second concerns the relationship between the temporal meaning of law’s own operations, and the presumption of innocence.