Hobbes on Political Authority,Practical Reason and Truth

The role of sovereign authority in Hobbes' political philosophy is to establish peace and stability by serving as a definitive and unambiguous source of law. Although these broad outlines of Hobbes' account of political authority are uncontentious, matters quickly become more complicated once one seeks its normative basis. This much is evident from recent debates on the normative status of the laws of nature and the related issue as to whether Hobbes is better categorised as an incipient legal positivist or as a heterodox natural law thinker. In this paper I argue that although the positivist and natural law commitments in Hobbes' theory of political authority can be partially reconciled, such a reconciliation points to the need for more substantive theories of practical reason and truth than are to be found in Hobbes' official statements on these topics. Section II examines the positivist and natural law dimensions in Hobbes' thought and suggests that the role of sovereign authority in providing the definitive interpretation of the laws of nature allows a partial reconciliation to be effected. In section III, I consider the tension between this reconciliation and Hobbes' instrumentalism about practical reason and equivocal separation of authority and truth.     

法律解释及其基本特征

在法治社会中 ,如果没有法律解释理论 ,仍可能形成新的专制。法律解释应是法官按照法律的规范意旨 ,运用法律思维方式 ,在法律适用过程中 ,对与案件相关的法律和事实的意义所作的阐明。它有三个基本特征 :法律解释是站在法律的立场上 ,对法律的意义所作出的有效力的解释 ,具有合法性特征 :法律解释具有法律的部分与整体的互动、法律与事实的互动的循环性特征 ;法律解释因把一般的法律个别化而具有创造性特征     

论目的主义的制定法解释方法——以美国法律过程学派的目的主义版本为中心的分析

目的主义在美国主要指法律过程学派的哈特和萨克斯所提出的制定法解释理论.该理论反对传统制定法解释中的意义论和意图论,强调目的在制定法解释中的优先地位及解释者对制定法目的的建构,要求以能最佳实现目的的方式来确定制定法文本的意义,并对解释施加文本规约意义和“清楚陈述的既定政策”的限制.目的主义的吸引力在于既赋予解释者更新、发展制定法的任务,以合作者的姿态参与公共政策的生产过程,又竭力避免非民选的司法机关作出争议性的价值判断和政策选择.     

犯罪着手的教义学重述:学说对决、命题重证与具体解答

形式客观说并未丢弃实质,故其本为形式与实质相结合说。是否立足于构成要件行为是法益侵害紧迫危险性的刑法定型,决定了形式客观说和实质客观说各自是否为犯罪着手认定提供了明确标准,且是否导致犯罪着手认定的过于提前或推迟,进而决定了是否背离罪刑法定原则。犯罪着手的认定标准,应抛弃脱离形式限制的实质客观说而仍坚持形式客观说,但其“开始命题”应通过“基于大数法则的类型化危险形成说”而将犯罪着手的认定标准予以实质性落实。通过“基于大数法则的类型化危险形成说”,形式客观说对结合犯、隔离犯、徐行犯和原因自由行为型犯罪的着手能够做出妥当解答。     

The ghost that slayed the mandate

Virginia v. Sebelius is a federal lawsuit in which Virginia has challenged President Obama's signature legislative initiative of health care reform. Virginia has sought declaratory and injunctive relief to vindicate a state statute declaring that no Virginia resident shall be required to buy health insurance. To defend this state law from the preemptive effect of federal law, Virginia has contended that the federal legislation's individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. Virginia's lawsuit has been one of the most closely followed and politically salient federal cases in recent times. Yet the very features of the case that have contributed to its political salience also require its dismissal for lack of statutory subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has placed limits on statutory subject matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions in which a state seeks a declaration that a state statute is not preempted by federal law--precisely the relief sought in Virginia v. Sebelius. These statutory limits are a sea wall; they keep out, on statutory grounds, some suits that should otherwise be kept out on Article III grounds. The statutory and constitutional limits on federal jurisdiction over suits like Virginia v. Sebelius insulate federal courts from the strong political forces surrounding lawsuits that follow from state statutes designed to create federal jurisdiction over constitutional challenges by states to federal law. This Article identifies previously neglected jurisdictional limits, shows why they demand dismissal of Virginia v. Sebelius, and explains why it is appropriate for federal courts to be closed to suits of this type.     

Are There Methods of Reasoning on ‘Meta‐Legislation’? The Interpretation of Legislative Competence Norms within the Methodology of European Constitutional Law

Legislative competence norms are paradigmatic elements of European constitutional law and the supranational, post‐federal era. The article aims to address legislative competence norms from the viewpoint of methodology by considering significant features of reasoning on European legislative competence norms. The discussion will be based on understanding legislative competences as ‘meta‐legislation’. That concept encompasses a substantive rather than formalistic, and a politically informed rather than strictly positivist account of legislative competences and their methodology. Against that background, the interpretation of competence norms is assessed. Subsequently, the process of interpretation is discussed according to judicial practice, constitutional theory and general legal methodology. A consideration of the significance of the—usually vast—wording of competence norms completes that discussion. Finally, consequences about the political inclusiveness of interpreting competence norms and the issue of ‘clarity’ are drawn. A conclusion summarises the results.     

刑法解释的变与不变——以行贿罪构成要件“为谋取不正当利益”的解释为视角

行贿罪必须具备＂为谋取不正当利益＂的目的。将＂为谋取不正当利益＂作为行贿罪法定构成要件,是我国立法机关经过审慎考察我国国情、国外立法之后的选择。何谓＂为谋取不正当利益＂,在司法实践、刑法学界存在争议。关于＂为谋取不正当利益＂的解释,体现了刑法解释的变与不变——随着社会的发展,刑法解释结论肯定会发生变化,但在某个具体的历史阶段,刑法解释的边界又是可以划分的。恰当地理解刑法条文,必须根植于社会现实与历史传统之中。     

刑法中的类型思维之提倡

类型思维是概念思维呈现没落态势时的基本法学思维方式,具有价值导向性、介于抽象与具体之间的中间性、使法规范与生活现实相互调适的开放性等特点。在刑法立法上,类型化应是我国将来的刑事立法发展方向;在刑法适用中,合理解释犯罪构成要件、准确形成案件事实都离不开类型思维。类型思维引入刑法领域,标志着刑法学摒弃主客体分离而采用主客体并存的认识模式,意味着刑法解释立场由形式解释论、主观解释论向实质解释论、客观解释论的革新,并带来了对禁止类推解释原则的深思。     

宪法解释具有创造性的原因

宪法解释具有创造性的原因有二:第一,诠释学在海德格尔和加达默尔之后实现了从方法论、认识论到本体论的转变。本体论诠释学强调读者领悟之意,认为理解在本质上是一种创造性的行为,而不仅仅是一种复制性的行为。哲学诠释学的理论被宪法解释学所借鉴,从本体论诠释学的角度来看,所有的宪法解释都具有创造性。第二,宪法文本所具有的抽象性、模糊性和不确定性,要求作为具体化宪法文本的宪法解释具有创造性。与本体论诠释学意义上的宪法解释的创造性不同,并不是所有作为具体化宪法文本的宪法解释都具有创造性,因为有一些宪法条款的规定基于社会共识的存在而相对明确,对于它们的解释更多地体现为客观性而不是创造性。     

祛魅与自足:政治理论对宪法解释的影响及其限度

宪法学究其根本是为了适用宪法而对宪法文本进行解释的宪法释义学。但是,由于宪法文本的不确定性,在宪法解释中纳入政治的考量是不可避免的。对于同样的宪法条款,在不同的政治理论引导下,会得出完全不同的解释结果。考察政治理论对宪法解释的影响是一种社会科学对法学的逻辑自足的祛魅,是有价值的。但是,随意选择作为宪法解释“背景规范”的政治理论,会导致解释的恣意,损害法的安定性价值。所以,必须根植于本国的制宪历史、规范环境和宪法文本去容纳政治理论论证这种“外部论证”,消解其对宪法解释确定性的损害。     

The Authority and Interpretation of Regulations

In the past half century, governments have increasingly relied on regulations—secondary legislation issued by administrative bodies and departments—to impose obligations on private parties, multiplying the occasions for regulatory interpretation. This article develops a theory of regulatory interpretation. It argues that such a theory involves understanding the authority of regulations. Turning to the public law of the UK, US, and Australia, this article identifies an intriguing similarity; in each case, regulations have authority when they rationally and nonarbitrarily implement delegated power within the means permitted by statute. The article then argues that this account of regulatory authority justifies a common approach to interpretation in which the object of interpretation is the purpose the regulation seeks to implement, discerned from the regulation's text and accompanying explanation of its purpose, and constrained by background legal norms.     

论我国台湾地区“司法院”大法官解释两岸关系的方法

我国台湾地区"司法院"大法官凭借所谓"释宪"机制,在两岸关系发展中扮演着重要角色。其针对两岸关系,已作成"法统"型、权利型、制度型三类共16个解释。大法官在解释两岸关系时,综合运用了文义、论理、历史、体系等传统解释方法,以及"政治问题不审查"、"结果取向解释"以及"宪法解释宪法"等新兴解释方法。经过数十年的发展,大法官在选择解释两岸关系的方法时,表现出所谓"去政治化"倾向。而"台独"分裂势力也正是利用大法官解释两岸关系时的"去政治化"倾向,力图通过维持形式上"中立"的法学方法,为其"台独"目的提供"正当化"外衣。     

TENNESSEE'S ADOPTION LAW

Tennessee has recently enacted legislation increasing access to adoption records, allowing adult adoptees to obtain their birth certificates and other information contained only in their adoption records. After that controversial statute became law, it was challenged in Doe v. Sundquist . After 3 years of litigation, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The authors discuss the history of Tennessee's adoption law, demonstrating how certain events led to the passing of the controversial statute. They also discuss the adoption triad, including the birth parents, adoptive parents, and adoptees, noting the interests of each party. Following that is a discussion of the Tennessee statute and how it operates. The commentary continues with a detailed look at Doe v. Sundquist , including the procedural and substantive issues in both federal and state court. The authors conclude that the Tennessee law is a practical and reasonable solution to the controversy over sealed adoption records.     

Quality and quantity in constitutional interpretation: the quest for analytic essentials in law

Henry Manne wrote about many topics central to the law-and-economics canon but also over a period of more than a decade later in life worked on a theory of constitutional interpretation, producing a paper and lectures on this subject. His goal was to use insights from economics to improve constitutional analysis, in particular seeking to ground constitutional interpretation in quantitative assessments he hoped would be both true to the primary goal of constitution-makers and capable of providing guidance to judges in ways less subject to the pull of political preferences. Despite his concerns with controlling constitutional interpretation in practice, the instincts Manne brought to this endeavor ran more to matters of theory than to its implementation by judges, identifying important propositions for interpretation but failing (by his own admission) to produce a test that fulfilled his aspirations. The strengths and weaknesses of this work provide an intriguing contrast with writings from Antonin Scalia, the American jurist and scholar whose approaches to both constitutional and statutory interpretation had a profound impact on jurisprudence over the past three decades. Like Manne, Scalia highly valued more determinate methods of analysis and was deeply concerned with the architecture of constitutional creation and effectuation. His focus, however, was more on the practical question of what happens when a particular sort of official has the power to implement a highly indeterminate test and what test best constrains interpretation in ways faithful to the interpretive task. Those goals undergird Scalia’s commitments to textualism and originalism. Manne’s and Scalia’s approaches to constitutional interpretation are instructive on the purposes served by analytical tools in disparate settings. In particular, they offer contrasting and complementary visions, providing insights about the domains of law-and-economics, legal analysis, practical judgment, and perspective.     

论美国行政法中的保护意图规则——兼议其对保护规范理论引入的启示

美国行政诉讼原告制度在自普通法样态逐步"公法化"的进程中形成了以实体法"保护意图"判定原告资格的保护意图规则,其核心逻辑同源起德国法的保护规范理论存在异曲同工之妙。作为类似法理在美国法背景下规则化的产物,保护意图规则对实体法"保护意图"的解读路径、规则构造,乃至其存在本身,和对于探讨我国有无必要排斥保护规范理论,以及构建保护规范理论的"中国法表达"等议题均极具参考意义。     

论民法中的集合物及其现代应用

我国《物权法》以不动产和动产作为物权的客体缺乏普适性。作为物权客体的物,应有多种法定的分类,集合物就是相当必要和重要的一种物的类型。国有财产、集体财产和私人财产以及企业,都符合集合物的构成要求;它们之所以能作为物权的客体,是要适用统一的法律关系。上述几种集合物可以依法成立归属意义的所有权法律关系和担保法律关系。集合物的这种意义能够起到民法上的确权和保护作用。建立多样化的物的分类体系应当成为我国未来的立法趋势。     

The Chimera of Proportionality: Institutionalising Limits on Punishment in Contemporary Social and Political Systems

The concept of proportionality has been central to the retributive revival in penal theory, and underlies desert theory's normative and practical commitment to limiting punishment. Theories of punishment combining desert‐based and consequentialist considerations also appeal to proportionality as a limiting condition. In this paper we argue that these claims are founded on an exaggerated idea of what proportionality can offer, and in particular fail properly to consider the institutional conditions needed to foster robust limits on the state's power to punish. The idea that appeals to proportionality as an abstract ideal can help to limit punishment is, we argue, a chimera: what has been thought of as proportionality is not a naturally existing relationship, but a product of political and social construction, cultural meaning‐making, and institution‐building. Drawing on evolutionary psychology and comparative political economy, we argue that philosophers and social scientists need to work together to understand how the appeal of the idea of proportionality can best be realised through substantive institutional frameworks under particular conditions.     

论社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联关系与风险防范

社会危害性理论与法益理论确实可以成为实质刑法观的理论基础,但是社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联性比较复杂,并非如部分学者所提示的那样一一对应。就持有传统社会危害性理论立场的学者而言,他们其实并非可以简单地归入实质刑法观立场;而主张改革完善传统社会危害性理论的部分学者,反而坚持实质刑法观立场。在中国语境下,实质刑法观面临的风险与批评,主要根源就在于作为实质刑法观理论基础的社会危害性理论具有太过强大的解释功能,且实质解释论的功能表现包括了保障人权的正面功能与严重侵犯人权的负面功能的两面,呈现出矛盾属性。为了防范风险,不但需要发展实质刑法观,而且需要完善社会危害性理论。单面的实质刑法观或者保守的实质刑法观,主张通过实质罪刑法定原则的限制、实质犯罪论的限制与实质司法解释权的限制,以有效防范开放的实质刑法观可能存在的侵蚀人权保障机能的风险,因而应当成为当下中国最理想的选择。