中国农村治理变迁与获致司法正义——“法律赋能”的启示

在治理结构的变迁中农村获致司法正义遭遇了困境。这包括司法服务能力虚浮、政权"内卷化"和存在治理真空、农村法律精英缺失,以及现代法律制度挤压传统治理规则等。从法律赋能的角度理解,农村获致司法正义实现的重要障碍在于农民法律权能的流失。因此实现农村的获致司法正义,不能仅靠法律制度和法律设施的建设,更需要对农民进行法律赋能。尊重非正式制度、发展替代性争端解决机制、培养农村社区法工等都是可行举措。     

法律原则的识别和适用

法律原则是法之要旨与目的的凝练 ,是法律规则的基础或本源 ,在法律结构中居于核心地位。司法过程中 ,必然涉及法律原则的理解和运用。司法者要通过对法律原则的识别标志、存在样态的考察 ,识别、提炼法律原则 ,遵循适用原则的方法和技术 ,在发挥原则弥补规则缺漏、错误 ,实现个案正义等规范功能的同时 ,防止原则的滥用。     

社会正义的司法演绎——周美知申诉案法理评析

正义是社会的价值追求,法是社会正义的表达,正义的司法是能够满足社会公众利益最大化要求的司法。周美知等人不服不起诉决定申诉案的受理和查处,实现了民众情感、社会公理和法律规范的有机结合,揭示了在构建和谐社会的语境下司法决定和社会正义价值认同的必要性与可行性。     

法律中的语言游戏与权力分配

既然法律是对社会资源进行合理配置的一种手段,那么表达法律的语言就足实现这一目标的工具。立法者通过语言,确立了社会资源的分配原则,而语言所表征的分配方式本身,证明着规范的正当性。但是,立法者通过语言对社会权力所做的分配不可能终局性地完成,这一任务必须向后延伸到司法过程中。司法者通过对个案中具体权利的决断与平衡,将立法者对社会权力所做的初次分配现实化、具体化、个别化。所以说,法之正义是由立法者和司法者共同缔造的,在立法者和司法者那里,语言本身都是一种权力。     

文义解释的司法操作技术规则

经过长期的法学理论阐发与司法实践尝试和检验,逐步形成了一系列指引和规范文义解释司法运用的操作技术规则,主要包括语法规则、语义学规则、概括性法律用语规则.通过运用一系列以明晰的规则表达的文义解释操作技术,法律文本的意义模糊问题得以消解,有助于提高司法裁判质量,维护司法正义.文义解释规则化操作表征着,实体正义恰以形式正义为前提条件而获保障.     

试论我国案例指导制度之建构

司法实务表明,由于语言表述的局限性,立法者预见未来的有限性以及制定法本身所固有的不周延性,制定法的诸多阙漏愈加受到人们的关注,所谓制定法规则的绝对确定性、普适性、稳定性显然是不存在的。由此,导致法——特别是私法,不能化约为纯粹的形式合法性,并且它也并不总是等同于正义,从而使形式合法性与个案正义要求之间的内在冲突不可避免。因此,个案正义的需求必须通过相应的司法制度并融入法律体系之中,才能使法律的严格、僵化得以有效缓解,才能使司法受众更可能现实地接近司法正义,也才能在实质意义上实现法律的目的、意义和价值。鉴于此…     

论法官在审理侵权案件中的适度能动

侵权责任法的颁布仅仅意味着立法者根据我国当下状况和现代侵权法的发展趋势,对众多价值判断问题的考量结果暂时以法律的形式公布出来,立法者的"紧张"已经结束,而司法者的"紧张"则刚刚开始,与财产法的适用相比,侵权法适用中法官的能动性更大,法官经常不得不超越法律文本的束缚来处理案件,因此法官有必要遵循一定的价值考量规则,以此为指导,采用开放式的司法思维模式,以最大限度地体现侵权责任法的包容性并最大限度地实现司法正义。     

浅析理性回应刑事司法过程中的民意——以“醉驾”行为的法律适用为视角

“醉驾”行为的法律适用成为社会公众舆论的热点，司法面对日益强烈的公众期待和民意压力，司法执法人员需要秉持对法律的理解，对社会舆论要保持理性中立的价值判断。保持司法独立，是维系司法体系正当地发挥其社会治理功能前提，独立司法符合民意的目的。理性回应民意能最大限度地实现刑事司法的使命，可以弥补专业化理解与现实的距离，较好地实现惩罚犯罪、保障人权的刑事诉讼目的。回应公众舆论，必须保持司法理性，公众舆论与司法者要设置一道“防火墙”。完善公众的参与机制、诉讼公开机制，畅通民意的正常表达通道，让民意以合法规范的渠道传递到司法者的面前，为司法者实现司法公正提供正义的土壤。     

传统中国法比附援引的源与流

文本表达与司法实践背离的问题自古有之,直到今天仍然困扰着我们。传统法比附援引在弥合法律文本与司法实践的缝隙方面发挥了至关重要的作用,与缘法定罪之间存在一定的张力,二者共同保证了司法结论的合法性与正当性。如何约束司法者比附的恣意性,是比附援引能够发挥应有作用的前提保证。探究比附援引的源与流对当下罪刑法定下如何把握扩张性解释的度具有一定的启发意义。     

从规范到事实:法律解释与罪刑法定

从规范到事实是法的实施过程。静态的规范与动态的事实无法顺利衔接将减损法的实施效果。法律解释立足于立法本身,探寻其背后的真实意旨并借助各种解释方法对既存法律的不足作出完善,实现立法预期的正当目的。比如刑法领域中对秘密窃取的解读,立足于规范与事实之间,在明晰及丰富刑法条文含义、使司法实践更具有可操作性的同时,体现出的是以普遍正义为追求理念的实质的罪刑法定原则。     

法律理性与法律的技术化

现代法律制度的每一个建构性要素及其运作过程的每一个环节,都表现出很强的技术性特征,这使得法律成为一种典型的社会技术。法律技术铸成了法律的确定性,使法律规范系统化;它划定了行为合法与不法的界限,使人们对自己的行为后果更有预期。可以说,技术化是法律理性在形式方面最重要的表现,而实践的特点决定了理性必然是形式理性与实质理性的统一,作为法律价值的载体和法律目的的支持系统,法律技术本身也是法治的基本条件之一。因此,法律的技术性特征及其意义应当受到重视,法律技术的功能也有待于我们加以深入地研究。     

法理和情理

情感并非只能是任性的和不公正的,并非不能作为法律价值的终极来源.从中国儒家的传统哲学思想出发,一种"中和"的情感是可能通过修身渠道获得的,它可以称为情理.以修身作为治国根本,实质上是奠定社会形而上的价值基础的根本.情理可从修身中被发现,并进入日常生活的正义认知中.在法律推理中,情理可以弥补现代法律的价值亏空.     

Legal Theory for Legal Empiricists

There is a widespread view that one does either theory or empirical work, and that theory and empiricism represent distant concerns, opposing worldviews, and perhaps distinct mentalities or personalities. This prevalent view has deep roots and is also the result of pragmatic and understandable tendencies toward division of intellectual labor. Against this view, this essay suggests that the relations between theory and empirical study ought to be understood as more intimate and that making legal theory an explicit focus can improve empirical scholarship. We pursue this claim by articulating a basis for legal theory and by showing how that basis illuminates both the application and design of empirical research on law. Legal theory, we argue, follows jurisprudence in interrogating the law as a set of coercive normative institutions. The upshot of this approach is a recognition that an interdisciplinary analysis of law must rely on both a theory (explicit or implicit) of the way law's power and its normativity align and an account of the way in which this discursive cohabitation manifests itself institutionally. We thus argue that legal theory is necessary in order to draw fruitfully on empirical research and further claim that legal theory provides guidance both for setting up an empirical research agenda on law and for designing research into specific topics.     

Legal Positivism and Legal Disagreements

This paper deals with the possibility of faultless disagreement in law. It does this by looking to other spheres in which faultless disagreement appears to be possible, mainly in matters of taste and ethics. Three possible accounts are explored: the realist account, the relativist account, and the expressivist account. The paper tries to show that in the case of legal disagreements, there is a place for an approach that can take into account our intuitions in the sense that legal disagreements are genuine and at times faultless.     

法律发展与法律知识化

法律发展首先必须面对合法化与价值诉求问题，而这一切又无不与作为基础的法律主体的知识立场密切相关。如何谋求“法律知识化”、话语合法化以及法律主体的价值立场的有效运作，是法律文明、有效发展的必要途径，也是法律发展话语摒弃规则主义弊端制约而建构自我所不可回避的挑战。从西方国家的经验看，现代法治的确立与以理性化为核心的法律知识化过程密不可分，法律知识化由知识对法律的关系提升、扩展为一种法律观，再由一种法律观落实为一种价值观、方法论，并由此引导法律主体追求和建设一种新的法律文明。更为重要的是，“法律知识化”使法治成为近代法律发展的本质性，把知识化原则导入法律发展领域，从而实现了法律发展的革命性变革。     

Legal Principles and Legal Theory

Current legal theory is concerned with the presence of principles in law partly because they are at the core of Dworkin's criticisms of Hart's rule of recognition. Hart's theory is threatened by the possibility that the identification of some principles follows an extremely relaxed rule of recognition, or even no rule at all. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive test to ascertain what is the case in actual practice. On the other hand, the evaluative arguments which support Dworkin's proposal of principled adjudication are forceful but not conclusive. Moreover, since ultimate controversy over values is plausible, judicial discretion may sometimes be inevitable.     

Legal Transplants and Legal Downloads

Online legal education has the potential to address a global audience. But little attention has been paid so far to the question of how teaching methods developed in one jurisdiction interact with the substantive law of another legal system. This paper challenges the assumption of the independence of substantive law and law teaching on the basis of a comparative evaluation of online law tutorials in Scotland and Germany. It concludes that the transplanting legal education, as transplanting substantive law, can have unpredictable consequences.     

Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited

This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal reasoning that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them.     

Global Legal Interaction and Legal Cultures

Abstract . The legal discourse of a steadily growing European legal community and universal legal harmonization is misleading since it abstracts completely from the cultural dimension of law which consist of patterns of interpretation and behavioral routines with respect to law. The article makes use of abundant literature in administrative sciences, international management research and socio-psychological studies in Intercultural Communication in order to propose indicators for a comparison of legal cultures in the areas of European legal integration, international commercial transactions and international lawyering.