Justificatory Liberalism and Same‐Sex Marriage

Supporters of Justificatory Liberalism (JL)—such as John Rawls and Gerard Gaus—typically maintain that the state may not coerce its citizens on matters of constitutional essentials unless it can provide public justification that the coerced citizens would be irrational in rejecting. The state, in other words, may not coerce citizens whose rejection of the coercion is based on their reasonable comprehensive doctrines (i.e., worldviews). Proponents of the legal recognition of same‐sex marriage (SSM) usually offer some version of JL as the most fundmental reason why laws that recognize marriage only if it is a union between one man and one woman are unjust. In this article I argue that the application of JL in support of legal recognition of SSM does not succeed because the issue under scrutiny—the nature of marriage—is deeply embedded in, and in most cases integral to, many (if not most) citizens’ reasonable comprehensive doctrines. Thus, I argue that because of the effects and consequences of the legal recognition of SSM, it results (or will result) in a violation of JL against dissenting citizens.     

刑事司法裁量的边际均衡——从枪支认定标准与赵春华案切入

立足于真实的社会生活实践而不是想象的概念语词,能更好地厘清涉枪案件刑事司法面临的困境。经由枪支认定标准,刑事司法权力突兀地介入普通民众的正常社会生活,打破司法权力与公民权利的基本边际均衡,造成了刑事司法裁量的尴尬。刑法意义上的具有高度危险性的枪支,不应该与普通民众生产、经营、游艺所使用玩具枪、仿真枪的正常活动发生关联。刑事司法不侵扰普通民众的日常生活,这是刑事司法权力与公民社会利益的基本边际均衡。以一个侵扰公民正常社会生活的枪支认定标准为基础对涉枪案件进行“综合考量”,只会增加刑事司法的内部复杂性,进而造成刑事司法正当性的严重削弱。只有直面真实的社会生活实践,摒弃迷恋语词的法律形式主义思维,看重刑事司法的系统性后果,确定适宜的枪支认定标准,维护刑事司法裁量的基本边际均衡,才能有效化解涉枪犯罪司法治理的困境。     

Law‐Linked Justice and Existence‐Linked Justice

Abstract. Justice as a manifestation of “the just” is an evasive concept. On the one hand there is the law, an operation run by professionals. On the other hand there are the citizens the law is meant for. Generally speaking the law strives for justice. But the law has to protect many different interests and must work through legal devices. Therefore the justice that emerges from it is necessarily a legal compromise. For the citizens the legal rules are a given reality. Generally they will agree that the law is there to achieve justice but legal arguments that justify a rule or decision cannot have the same value for them. In cases that affect them personally, justice will be a personal, existential experience, which may be incompatible with legal justice. It is hard to keep these two forms of justice under one roof. In order to make this easier this paper proposes a conceptual split between “law‐linked justice” and “existence‐linked justice.” It is argued that the law cannot in truth to its rational origin ignore the citizens’ experience of justice, out of the ordinary as they may be.     

解读刑事法治

刑事法治是法治的根本标志之一 ,而刑事法治就意味着以刑法限制国家的刑罚权 ,罪刑法定原则也就成为了刑事法治的必然首选。而我国传统的法律文化认为 ,刑法是阶级统治的工具 ,是无产阶级专政的“刀把子”。因此 ,要把我国建设成为一个现代的社会主义的法治国家 ,除了健全法律制度之外 ,更重要的是 ,我们必须更新观念 ,正确认识刑法的功能 :刑法不仅保护国家的利益、维护社会的稳定 ,也保护公民个人的合法权益。刑法是人权保障的“大宪章”。     

行政规划中的公众参与程序：理想与误区——从汶川地震恢复重建规划说起

通过对汶川地震恢复重建规划的分析可以发现，行政规划的确定将对众多社会群体的法律利益和事实利益产生重大影响。为此，有必要构建行政规划中的公众参与程序，作为公有制前提下公共利益与个体利益的平衡器，并以主体性公众参与作为目标模式。在行政规划的公众参与过程中，容易因公众参与的无限扩张导致政府决策效率低下甚至无法决策，或因公众利益的分化和参与不平衡导致社会公正受损，或者发生公众意见对法律和政策目标的偏离，对此均应竭力避免和纠正。     

传统与转型：坚守正义、守护良知和维护荣誉

律师是法律职业共同体中的一员,既要代表和维护委托人的利益,又要看重正义和司法公正。律师应当成为社会的一个阶层,构成一个重要的社会群体,构成公民社会一个最成熟的层面,成为反对专制和建设民主的重要社会力量。新世纪初,中国律师随社会政治转型再次面临新的转型,律师将从传统职业角色中走出来．部分地转向社会公共事务和政治生活。律师职业转型应当适度保持传统本色,以实现社会正义为根本使命,以守护社会良知为职业本分,以维护共同体的荣誉为最高利益。     

论血缘主义在确定亲子关系时的修正与限制

婚姻法上决定自然血亲的亲子关系的指导原理是血缘主义原则。但在某些情形下若彻底推行此原则反而可能招致对国家、社会或当事人的不利,因而应受到某些修正或限制。从各国婚姻法在自然血亲的亲子关系的确定方法上所设立的婚生推定和非婚生子女的认领及准正等方法模式中,可以窥知血缘主义在确定亲子关系时仍然要受到某些主观主义的限制。为谋求亲子关系的稳定,尤其为保障子女利益的需要,不得不在一定情形下承认没有血缘关系的“亲子”为法律上的亲子关系,有血缘关系的亲子却不是法律上的亲子关系。     

法治视野下的网络反腐

网络反腐法治化建设的宪政意义在于它是电子民主时代公民参政权的重要展现。参政权作为宪法及法律规定的现代社会公民享有的基本权利,在于确认和保障公民参与国家管理及社会事务的管理,监督和抑制权力滥用及其腐败。电子民主时代,网络参政拓宽了公民民主参与的渠道,公民参政权的实现变得切实可行。网络反腐法治化有利于公民参政权的落实,进而有力地推进民主监督制度的发展。网络反腐法治化的基本理念包括公众参与、规范统一、网民保护、信息公开,而建立健全网络反腐的法律制度,保护并激励网络举报人是其法治化的路径选择。     

论文化权利的宪法保护

公民的文化权利与公民所享有的政治、经济和社会权利一样,都是公民作为国家和社会主人翁所必须享有的法律利益。我国是社会主义国家,保护公民权利是社会主义事业一贯的宗旨。从宪法角度来保障公民的文化权利,最主要的是应当加强相关的制度建设。应当在宪法文本中明确文化权利的基本权利宪法地位,明确国家和政府在保障文化权利方面应当承担的职责或义务,加强对文化权利的平等性的保护以及应当制定文化基本法律,来保障文化权利的实现真正做到有法可依。     

公共利益：一个需要界定的行政法原则

公共利益,作为一个行政法的基本原则,其特定的法律内涵有两个方面的层次,一个是相对于个体利而言所具有的内容,即机会均等、公平竞争、资源共享和社会福利;另一个是功能性内容,即通过行政管理调节利的再分配。与此相应,公共利益应当具有以例举式与概括式相结合为特点的法律形式和通过一定条件下的“博弈”程获得实现的方式。     

涉外同性婚姻法律适用问题研究

世界范围内,同性婚姻为一些国家法律认可的事实,与中国大陆对该身份领域的变化,仅存于学者呼吁应保护少数人人权的现状,则提出了在中国大陆涉外同性婚姻的法律适用问题。依据我国"涉外民事关系法律适用法"的有关规定,同性结合存在的客观事实,医学上界定其不是一种疾病的科学论断,及公平与正义、且具有全球视野的、与时俱进的现代意识,我们在法律观念与法律制度上应倾注切实可行的法律人文性。在一定的条件和法律环境下,适宜的冲突法或者直接调整方法运用于该领域,是保障人的自由权、契约身份权,维护依法设立的民事关系的稳定性,内外有别地对待与处理涉外民事身份关系的需要。     

Some Theoretical Problems of the Constitutional Structure of the Soviet State

The Soviet Constitution is the fundamental law stipulating the socio-economic and political system, defining the principles of organization and functioning of the state agencies, the legal position of social organizations and the legal status of citizens (their fundamental rights and duties), and proclaiming the basic tasks of the people and the trends in the development of society and the state. In other words, it reflects a half century of experience in building the society and state, the historical triumphs of the people in various areas of economic, political and cultural life, and it indicates the direction of further development.     

Deliberative Democracy and Liberal Rights

Many liberals cannot help distrusting deliberative democracy theory. In their view, the theory offers no sufficient guarantee that the outcomes of democratic deliberation will be respectful of individual interests generating what they conceive as basic moral rights. The purpose of this text is to provide one argument showing that liberal rights are sufficiently protected within deliberative democracy theory. The argument does not rest on the idea of moral rights or material justice. It rests on the conditions of legitimate law deliberative democracy theory presupposes, namely, the conditions that make concrete the idea of legitimacy as "actual public justification."     

民主价值的司法维护机理

民主治理的理念、权利保障的意识和权力制约的价值取向是现代宪法的基本精神,维护和实现宪法的民主价值是人民主权的内在要求,也是司法的应有功能。司法的组织结构、程序机制和管辖范围决定了法院可以通过政治渠道的疏通实现形式民主与实质民主的有机统一,通过价值整合实现民主秩序结构与文化秩序结构的有机融合,通过宪法阐释实现法律意志与公众政治意愿的有机结合,从而有效解决形式民主与实质民主、集体自主与个人选择、过去的法律意志与现时的民众意愿之间的冲突。     

情势变更案件处理的路径与策略

本文从法与理的结合上,对我国处理情势变更案件的问题作了新的阐释。文章认为,虽然我国民商法律没有规定"情势变更原则",但处理情势变更案件并无法律障碍。在法律路径选择上,涉外合同关系可适用国际惯例,国内合同关系则分情况而定:有具体规定时适用规定,无具体规定时,可以适用法定的"公平原则"。在适用"公平原则"时,应当注意操作策略:严格把握适用条件,并注意适用效果和严格的程序。     

公平视野下的德国简化税法改革方案——基于保罗·基尔希霍夫教授税收正义理论的公法学思考

保罗·基尔希霍夫教授提出的税制改革方案主要借助取消不必要的类型化区分、确立中立法律形式下的课税表达、对婚姻和家庭的特别保护、减少例外规则以及简化税收程序等来实现税收正义。税收不仅仅是政治上的现实,其改革思路的起点恰在于税收背后的宪法理念:宪政体制下的租税国家、人格图像并函摄了基本权利主客观面向的理论基础,即对国家共同体及任务有着共同价值观的自由而有个性的人必然要求处于国家所保障的自由经济体制下的税收法律予以相匹配的规制,它具体表现为以减少纳税人税收形成可能性为目标,保障国家对个人经济成果最温和分享以及减少例外的原则。     

法律公正是构建和谐社会的法治基础

社会公平正义是社会和谐的基本条件,制度是社会公平正义的根本保证。社会不公多与法律制度不公有关。完善法律制度,保证立法公正是维护社会公平正义,实现社会主义和谐社会最基本的制度保障。完善社会主义法律制度必须坚持以人为本的原则,科学立法、民主立法,实现以体现公正价值,体现民众意愿,适应社会发展的良法之治。同时还应该完善违宪审查制度,维护社会主义法制的统一和尊严,树立社会主义法制权威,夯实社会和谐的法治基础。     

紧急状态下的权利保护与救济

紧急状态下为了公共利益、公共秩序的需要政府享有必要的紧急权力,包括更多的限制或剥夺公民的合法权益的权力,在法治时代这种权力也要受法律的理性规制,保护公民合法权益应是紧急状态立法的重要目的或价值取向之一;政府行使紧急权力要遵循一定的法治原则,而公民面对政府紧急权力的行使,除了享有一些不可克减的基本权利外,还应享有知情权、监督权、紧急救助请求权、申请行政复议或提起行政诉讼权、特别损失补偿权、损害赔偿请求权,从而获得有效的救济。     

A Legal Conventionalist Approach to Pollution

There are no moral entitlements with respect to pollution prior to legal conventions that establish them, or so I will argue. While some moral entitlements precede legal conventions, pollution is part of a category of harms against interests that stands apart in this regard. More specifically, pollution is a problematic type of harm that creates liability only under certain conditions. Human interactions lead to harm and to the invasion of others’ space regularly, and therefore we need an account of undue harm as a basis of assigning legal protections (rights) and obligations (duties) to different agents, which creates standards for holding those agents responsible for harm. Absent such positive standards with respect to pollution at the domestic or international level, it does not make sense to hold agents responsible. This fact has two fundamental implications. First, contrary to what some defenders of environmental justice argue, we cannot hold people responsible for polluting without a system of legal rights in place that assigns entitlements, protections, and obligations, and second, contrary to what opponents of environmental regulation claim, the lack of moral entitlements to pollute creates room for quite extensive legal restrictions on people’s ability to pollute for the sake of the environment and human health. Indeed the scope of those restrictions is wide and open-ended.     

The Subjects of Collectively Binding Decisions: Democratic Inclusion and Extraterritorial Law

Citizenship and residency are basic conditions for political inclusion in a democracy. However, if democracy is premised on the inclusion of everyone subject to collectively binding decisions, the relevance of either citizenship or residency for recognition as a member of the polity is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to specify the conditions for being subject to collective decisions in the sense relevant to democratic theory. Three conceptions of what it means to be subject to collectively binding decisions are identified and examined, referring to those subject to legal duties and legal powers or to those subject to legal duties and state institutions. The contrast between them is most clearly illustrated in relation to non‐residents, those not present in the territory of the state. The extraterritorial dimension of the law thus highlights a fundamental ambiguity in the theory of democracy concerning the extension of political rights.