Legal Positivism and Deontic Detachment

I consider a puzzle that arises when the logical principle known as “deontic detachment” is applied to the law. It is not possible to accept the principle of deontic detachment in a legal setting while also accepting that the so‐called “social facts thesis” applies to all legal propositions. According to the social facts thesis, the existence and content of law is determined by the attitudes or practices of legal officials. Abandoning deontic detachment is not an appropriate solution to the problem—the puzzle can be recreated with other plausible closure principles. The problem can be solved by restricting the social facts thesis to legal rules, rather than applying it to all legal propositions. Properly construed the social facts thesis does not apply to facts about what legally ought to be the case.     

Legal Concepts in a Natural Language Based Expert System*

Abstract. A new approach to the formalization of concepts used in legal reasoning such as obligation and cause is presented. The formalization is based on the linguistic use of the concepts both in legal language and in ordinary language, and has been motivated by work on a legal expert system with a natural language interface. Particularly for the concept of obligation this yields quite different results from those obtained by the usual approach of deontic logic: So-called paradoxes are avoided, quantification over obligations becomes possible, no restriction to a “single-agent system” is required, and collisions of obligations can be formulated.     

一个结合时态的法律规范推理系统TDWL’0

义务冲突问题的存在，使法律规范推理的应用功能受到限制，让其成为规范逻辑研究中必需解决的问题。通过对义务的具体语境进行分析，提出结合义务的时态因素建立法律规范推理系统TDWL’0的新主张，这不但可以有效处理义务冲突问题，并且有利于增强规范逻辑在法律实践领域中的应用价值。     

The Meanings of the Logical Constants in Deontic Logic

If deontic logic is to cast light on any of the normative sciences, such as legal reasoning, then certain problems regarding its logical constants must be faced. Recent studies in the area of deontic logic have tended to assume that it is our responses to the "paradoxes" of deontic implication which are fundamental to resolving problems with the use of deontic logic to investigate various branches of normative reasoning. In this paper I wish to show that the paradoxes are of secondary importance; that they are merely by-products of the central issue, namely the ability of certain syntactic forms to embody natural language structures used in reasoning about norms. An investigation of modal syntax is proffered as the best starting-point from which to tackle the questions that still dog the legitimacy of deontic logic. Part I provides some philosophical background to the discussion of deontic logical constants. Part II addresses in greater detail issues concerning the representation of normative concepts; and Part III offers a few remarks on the general issue of deontic logic's fruitfulness as an analytical tool.     

Normative Systems,Permission and Deontic Logic*

Abstract. The authors concentrate on the analysis of the concept of permission. After a general account of differing concepts of permission both with regard to different legal theories and to different legal ideologies, they argue in favour of a “radical” imperativism which leaves no place for permissive norms. Thus, in contrast with the logic of normative language (LNL) purported by Alchourrón and Bulygin, the authors figure out a system of deontic logic - supplemented by devices of the possible world semantics - according to which a normative system (N) is conceived as a set of logical consequences of a certain finite set of basic obligations and no room is left either for the concept of weak permission or for the concept of strong permission. Finally the authors raise some criticisms concerning the view maintained by Alchourron and Bulygin on strong permission.*     

‘Factual causation’ and ‘scope of liability’: What's the difference?

According to a dominant view, for the negligent defendant to be held liable for the plaintiff's harm the plaintiff must establish first, that the breach was the ‘factual cause’ of the harm, and second, that the harm is within the ‘scope of liability’. On this view, factual causation is purely factual, while scope of liability is normative and non‐causal. This article accepts the basic two‐step approach, but argues that the distinction is overstated. A close analysis of the principles shows that factual causation may require value judgment, and that scope of liability often involves an assessment of the strength and nature of the causal connection between breach and harm.     

Some Remarks on the Concept of Toleration

The paper contains a conceptual analysis of "act of toleration" and the property of "being tolerant". Being tolerant is understood as a dispositional property of persons manifested in what the author calls the "circumstances of toleration". The main circumstances distinguished are: a tendency to prohibit a certain behaviour and the competence to determine the deontic status of the behaviour in question. An act of toleration, then, consists in not prohibiting (or cancelling the prohibition of) that behaviour. It is argued that this requires the existence of two different normative systems, the "basic system", and the "justifying system". Acts of toleration must be based on reasons coming from the latter. This insight enables one to establish a difference between reasonable and unreasonable toleration, as well as between toleration and related concepts like indifference, acquiescence, etc. The analysis also introduces the distinction between "vertical" and "horizontal" toleration. Acceptance of this last category implies that toleration does not necessarily require hierarchical relationships between those who tolerate and those whose actions are tolerated.     

Gourmet Can Have His Keck and Eat It!

Abstract: The touchstone of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Keck has been the question of how to apply the criteria allowing the exclusion of selling arrangements from the scope of Article 28 EC, in particular in respect of national regulatory rules relating to advertisement. This article examines the evolution of the Court's approach to selling arrangements in the light of the requirements set out in Keck. The judgment in Gourmet has added to the debates as it highlights the issue of the ‘market access’ test as a reference for the assessment of factual discrimination in respect of selling arrangements covered by the Keck exception. The article focuses on the impact of Gourmet on the determination of the outer limits of the scope of application of Article 28 EC, and thus attempts to find a place for Gourmet within the spectrum between the rejection of the judgment in Keck at one end, and the refinement of the requirement relating to ensuring that there is no factual discrimination between imported and domestic products in the application of national rules covered by the Keck exception, at the other.     

Methodological Considerations in Pretrial Publicity Research: Is the Medium the Message?

Two methodological issues within the pretrial publicity (PTP) literature were examined in the present experiment: the effect of emotional versus factual PTP and the effect of presenting PTP through different media. Emotional and factual PTP were constructed that differed in level of emotionality, but produced the same degree of bias. The PTP was presented in either a videotaped or written format. Although there was a significantly biasing effect of PTP overall compared to a control condition, no significant difference was found either between factual and emotional PTP or between video and written PTP.     

Granting the Right to Vote for the European Parliament to Resident Third‐Country Nationals: Civic Citizenship Revisited

The EU grants rights to third‐country nationals (TCNs) and strives to approximate their rights to those of Union citizens. Up to now, the approximation has extended to social and economic matters. This article investigates whether political rights, notably voting rights for the European Parliament (EP), should also be approximated. To this end, the analysis applies Dahl's democratic principles of ‘coercion’ and ‘all affected interests’ as well as Bauböck's principle of ‘stakeholding’ to the position of TCNs in the EU. Against that background, it explores the relevance of arguments for and against granting TCNs the right to vote in European elections and submits that voting rights should be granted to long‐term resident TCNs. The author then proposes including TCN voting rights in the legal framework for EP elections and concludes by suggesting the use of the concept of civic citizenship to express political approximation of TCNs to EU citizens.     

Legality Policies and Theories of Legality: From Bananas to Radbruch's Formula*

Abstract. In this paper I shall take an inferential approach to legality (legal validity), and consider how the legality of a norm can be inferred, and what can be inferred from it. In particular, I shall analyse legality policies, namely, conditionals conferring the quality of legality upon norms having certain properties, and I shall examine to what extent such conditionals need to be positivistic, so that legality is only dependant on social facts. Finally, I shall consider how legality is transmitted from norm to norm and whether the ultimate legality policies (the rules of recognition) of a legal system need to be constituted by social facts.     

评“死海卷宗案”

"死海卷宗案"涉及的是一个含有推测因素的事实作品的可版权性问题。事实并非由作者所创作,不应受版权保护,而应该属于公有领域。虽然作者对事实的推测花费了劳动和技巧,但法院一般认为有关客观事实的理论不具有可版权性。从版权法的立法目的、利益衡量、版权法的基本原理等角度出发,该案中以利沙.齐蒙所重建的历史文本不应当受版权保护。由该案进一步合理延伸,我们认为,不论是客观事实还是有关客观事实的理论都不应当受版权保护。     

试论竞合性事实错误——以行为性质错误为契合点

与单一的事实错误不同,竞合性事实错误系两个不同的错误重叠交叉所致。以行为性质错误为契合点,与其重叠的竞合性事实错误常见的有行为性质错误与打击错误的竞合、行为性质错误与对象错误的竞合以及行为性质错误与手段错误的竞合。在竞合性事实错误的处理上,应分别就不同的错误进行规范评价,进而从整体上对双重错误问题作出适中的定性分析。     

麦考密克论融贯

麦考密克对规范性融贯和描述性融贯的区分，启示我们在司法裁判或证立过程中不但要重视规范要素的融贯、而且要重视事实要素的融贯，规范性融贯与描述性融贯密不可分，法律方法领域不应忽视对证据融贯性要求的研究。努力在法律体系内确保价值融贯的原则论证方式，不仅是对司法证立的一种形式要求，而且含有正当性要求，它把司法行为限制在合法范围内，在约束法官判决主观因素的同时，增加了司法行为的机动性。     

民事诉讼基本原则系统论

系统科学理论的核心是它的方法论。对个别民事诉讼基本原则的专项分析模式虽有必要 ,但已经远远落后于当今综合化、整体化、体系化的研究思维趋势。本文运用科学的系统论 ,从价值构成原则系统的要素、原则系统的稳定性与模糊性以及原则系统的位阶结构等方面对民事诉讼基本原则研究进行初次理论尝试 ,并作出不同于传统法律语境的“另类”诠释 ,以阐明建立民事诉讼基本原则系统的必要性和可行性。     

Jones v. Gerhardstein: the involuntarily committed mental patient's right to refuse treatment with psychotropic drugs

The question of whether an involuntary committed mental patient has a fundamental right to refuse treatment with psychotropic drugs continues to be a subject of much debate. Over the past twenty-five years, psychotropic drugs have become the most common form of treatment for the mentally ill. For many patients, these drugs provide substantial benefits; for others, however, they produce severe, sometimes debilitating, side effects. Because of the possibility of serious harm to the patient and because of the potential for abuse of drug treatment by psychiatric staffs, the mental health bar generally has argued for increased procedural protection for mental patients. In Jones v. Gerhardstein, the Wisconsin Supreme Court responded to these concerns by requiring that a judicial hearing be held on the issue of a patient's competency to refuse treatment before the attending physician may administer medication without the patient's consent. This Note discusses the controversy between the legal and medical communities over treatment refusal by mentally ill patients in light of the impact of the Jones decision on institutional practice and on refusing patients. The author argues that the strictly rights-based analysis used by the Jones court has done little to benefit involuntarily committed mental patients. The author suggests alternative ways of approaching treatment refusal that might be more responsive to the distinctive needs of the mentally ill.