苏联宪法学说对中国宪法学说的影响

苏联宪法学说对中国宪法学说的影响集中体现在20世纪50年代,但其影响过程前可追溯至20世纪20年代以降,后可延续至20世纪80、90年代。其影响的方式体现为翻译出版苏联宪法的教材、著作和论文,苏联法学专家直接开设"苏维埃国家法"课程介绍苏联宪法理论;影响的内容主要表现在宪法概念、宪法作用、宪法本质、宪法与法制和法治的关系、人民权利与公民权利、宪法学体系等方面;影响的结果可归结为宪法学研究"阶级斗争范式"的形成、以国家学说为核心的宪法学体系建构以及轻视宪法基础理论的研究。     

改革、修宪与宪法理论论争——现行宪法颁布30周年之际的一个学术史回溯

从宪法修改问题在学界的最初提出、学界对频繁修宪现象的反思以及在宪法修改内容方面的一些理论焦点等问题出发,梳理了现行宪法颁布以来学界对于宪法修改的一些争议性论题,旨在以宪法修改的相关理论论争为线索,探究现行宪法30年来的变迁轨迹,并对现行宪法的实施、变迁等问题进行一个客观的评价。     

The influence of the rulings of the Constitutional Court on the development of health law in Lithuania

This article highlights some recent developments in the constitutional doctrine of the right to health care in Lithuania, and more in particular the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania on the development of health law. The right to health care, enshrined in the Constitution, is both an obligation of the state and an individual right. The Constitutional Court has developed a doctrine of the right to health care, as well a doctrine of certain other constitutional social rights, which is based on the understanding of the close interrelation between the different constitutional rights, the principle of indivisibility and equal importance of these rights, and the presumption of justiciability of social rights. The analysis is based on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Two cases on the disputes of the legal regulation concerning the pharmaceutical activities are presented in more detail.     

All Bark and No Bite: Notes on the Federal Constitutional Court's 'Banana Decision'

The Federal Constitutional Court's banana decision of 7 June 2000 continues the complex theme of national fundamental‐rights control over Community law. Whereas in the ‘Solange II’ decision (BVerfGE 73, 339) the Federal Constitutional Court had lowered its standard of review to the general guarantee of the constitutionally mandatorily required minimum, the Maastricht judgment (BVerfGE 89, 155) had raised doubts as to the continued validity of this case law. In the banana decision, which was based on the submission of the EC banana market regulation by the Frankfurt‐am‐Main administrative court for constitutional review, the Federal Constitutional Court has now confirmed the ‘Solange II’decision and restrictively specified the admissibility conditions for constitutional review of Community law as follows. Constitutional complaints and judicial applications for review of European legislation alleging fundamental‐rights infringements are inadmissible unless they show that the development of European law including Court of Justice case law has since the ‘Solange II’ decision generally fallen below the mandatorily required fundamental‐rights standard of the Basic Law in a given field. This would require a comprehensive comparison of European and national fundamental‐rights protection. This paper criticises this formula as being logically problematic and scarcely compatible with the Basic Law. Starting from the position that national constitutional courts active even in European matters should be among the essential vertical ‘checks and balances’ in the European multi‐level system, a practical alternative to the Federal Constitutional Court's retreat is developed. This involves at the first stage a submission by the Federal Constitutional Court to the Court of Justice, something that in the banana case might have taken up questions on the method of fundamental‐rights review and the internal Community effect of WTO dispute settlement decisions. Should national constitutional identity not be upheld even by this, then at a second stage, as ultima ratio taking recourse to general international law, the call is made for the decision of constitutional conflicts by an independent mediating body.     

Game of courts: A tale of principles and institutions

The ontological, terminological and conceptual confusion that surrounds the concept of ‘general principles of European Union law’ is far from being resolved. The constitutional interlocutors—the Court of Justice of the European Union and the highest courts in Member States—have at times fiercely argued about their different understanding of general principles, whereas European legal scholarship has failed to convincingly clarify the intricacies surrounding this source of law. Instead of engaging with a more abstract, theoretical question of what general principles are, this paper reflects on the practical, functionalist question: how are they used by the Court of Justice and what are some of their functions and implications? To do so, it enquires into contextual, institutional and strategic features of the Court's behaviour and jurisprudence and responses of the highest national judiciaries to this jurisprudence. The aim is to offer an alternative account of the Court's jurisprudence on general principles.     

Constitutional Judicial Review in the Russian Federation

The institution of constitutional judicial review has acquired a new legal foundation for its application: the Constitution of the Russian Federation (RF), adopted on 12 December 1993; the federal constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 21 June 1994; and other acts. However, the opportunities for full implementation of this new legislation on constitutional judicial review in the Russian Federation are constrained by problems from the past: first of all, by the problem of depoliticization, which has assumed exaggerated proportions as a result of the lack of practical success that marked the first stage of the Constitutional Court's operation in Russia. The resolution of this problem has become a condition for the viability of specialized constitutional judicial review in the RF. The difficulty of understanding and mastering this problem is further aggravated by the ambiguous nature of the institution of constitutional judicial review, not only in the Russian model but also in the classical model of its organization. For it is indisputable that constitutional judicial review is a component of the mechanism of judicial authority, regardless of where it is situated in the constitutional structure of power. However, constitutional judicial review cannot be wholly equated with traditional judicial functions since it is at the same time also a political activity undertaken through a jurisdictional form.     

宪法的稳定性与稳定性的宪法——以中美宪法文本的比较为视角

宪法的稳定性既是维持宪政秩序有效运行的基础,也是宪法作为根本法的原则性和作为法律的规范性的具体要求。美国宪法具有较强的特定性,它是通过民众对宪法精神的敬畏与信仰,以及宪法文本的独特品质与最高法院的宪法解释等途径实现的。探索《美国宪法》稳定性的深层背景,检讨我国《宪法》文本的缺失与不足,对于我们如何处理宪法的稳定性与适应性的关系,完善我国的宪法解释与宪法修改制度,都具有十分重要的借鉴意义。     

Devotion to Legalism: On the Brexit Case

This note examines the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Brexit case, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The case upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the claim that the foreign affairs prerogative provided a legal basis for giving notice to EU institutions of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. But the Supreme Court's preferred basis for dismissing that claim rested on the more general proposition that significant constitutional change can only be effected by statute. This position offers the germs of a jurisprudence of constitutional change and was substantiated by means of an analysis of Parliament's dual capacity as legislator and constituent agent. Miller also includes important and potentially innovative dicta on the relationship between international and domestic sources of law.     

An Analysis of Policy‐Based Congressional Responses to the U.S. Supreme Court's Constitutional Decisions

While Congress can attempt to overrule constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court by initiating the constitutional amendment process, an amendment is rarely a practicable option. Instead, Congress regularly tries to modify the impact of constitutional decisions with ordinary legislation. I analyze policy‐based responses to the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions that were initiated in Congress between 1995 and 2010. For each responsive proposal, I consider the relationship between the proposed legislation and the Court's legal holding and the relationship between the proposal and the public policy associated with the Court's decision. I find that Congress enjoys considerable success in reversing the policy impacts of the Court's decisions but is limited in its ability to overcome the Court's legal rules.     

The decision of the Italian Constitutional Court on numerus clausus: A matter for Community law

This article discusses the recent decision of the Italian Constitutional Court on the numerus clausus issue, containing the first relevant pronouncement by the highest jurisdiction on the constitutional legality of the measures adopted so far by the Ministry. The Constitutional Court considers these measures in conformity with the Constitution to the extent that they implement Community law, and especially certain directives on the recognition of qualifications. Thus, Community law is deemed to provide the proper legal framework to adopt certain regulations, amongst which restrictions to access. This article argues that, in the context of litigation on access to university, Community law has been used improperly and that, in any event, a convenient solution to the issue could have been found in national law. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

不抵触宪法原则的适用范围:规范差异与制度逻辑

不抵触宪法原则是我国宪法上国家法制统一原则的一项重要内容。该原则对于贯彻宪法精神和原则,维护国家法制统一以及确定合宪性审查的对象范围,具有重要作用和指导意义。根据宪法第5条第3款、第67条第7项第8项、第100条第1款第2款的规定,不抵触宪法原则的适用范围包括法律、国务院制定的行政法规、决定和命令以及省、自治区、直辖市、设区的市人大及其常委会制定的地方性法规和决议。而根据《立法法》第72条第1款第2款、第87条、第97条第2项、第99条第1款第2款、第100条第1款第3款的规定,不抵触宪法原则的适用范围"被扩大"了,还包括自治条例、单行条例和规章。从合宪性审查的制度逻辑出发,宪法之所以将部分行政法规和地方性法规纳入不抵触宪法原则的适用范围,是因为它们存在着直接依据宪法制定的情形。而《立法法》将不抵触宪法原则的适用范围扩展到所有的法律规范,遵循的是一种宽泛意义上的制度逻辑,其所谓的"不抵触",不应当被解释为不抵触宪法原则适用范围的"扩大"。     

公民宪法义务与相关概念的关系

公民宪法义务已经得到世界上绝大多数国家的肯定和国际社会的普遍认同。对公民宪法义务的深入研究有助于中国宪法学向纵深方向发展。在回答了公民宪法义务是什么、他国宪法义务如何规定后,公民宪法义务与宪法权利、道德、其他部门法义务等概念的关系成为宪法义务研究无法回避的问题。     

National Constitutional Jurisprudence in a Post‐National Europe: The ESM Ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Disavowal of Conflict

In its pending decision on the constitutionality of the European Stability Mechanism and Fiscal Compact, the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has recently ruled on several applications for temporary injunctions against the transposition of these instruments. The problem of democratic self‐determination under the constraints of monetary integration has been a main concern in the ruling. Yet, the democracy‐safeguards the FCC has prescribed are parochial in not considering their impact on other EU Member States, and the Court's view of autonomy is skewed towards the issue of spending. Both concepts are at odds with the current level of transnational interdependence, which the FCC as relay to ‘integration by stealth’ has facilitated during two decades of EU‐jurisprudence. Constitutional jurisdiction should acknowledge its role in this state of affairs and fortify its effort in building judicial networks of deliberative exchange to overcome outworn parochialisms.     

法国宪法实践中对国际条约的合宪性审查

设立宪法委员会实施合宪性审查是法国1958年宪法的一大突破,其中对于国际条约的合宪性进行审查更是宪法委员会实践中的亮点之一。在欧洲一体化进程加快的形势下,作为国内的合宪性审查机构,如何实施对于国际法文件,特别是欧盟法律文件的合宪性审查是宪法委员会面临的重大难题,宪法委员会在这个方面既表现出了一定的创造性,更表现出了相当大的自我约束,这在一定程度上发展了法国的宪法制度,但也反映出其对于宪法难题的回避。     

八二宪法实施状况评析

评价八二宪法实施状况在理论上是一个非常复杂的系统工程,它涉及到评价方法、评价对象、评价标准等等因素的影响。从总体上来看,八二宪法的绝大多数条款在立法实施层面都得到了比较好的体现,全国人大及其常委会已经通过制定具体法律的形式将现行宪法中的主要条文加以细化,故考察现行宪法具体条文的实施状况应当从考察这些具体法律入手。应当对八二宪法实施状况建立一个兼具客观标准和主观评价相结合的科学评估机制,还应当引进诸如宪法时刻、宪法阻却等等可以明显判定宪法实施状况的基础性概念,才能更有效地来评价八二宪法实施的真实状况,从而为完善宪法实施制度、加强对宪法实施的监督提供准确和有效的分析数据。     

Protecting Tobacco Advertising Under the Commercial Speech Doctrine: The Constitutional Impact of Lorillard Tobacco Co.

Since 1980, the Supreme Court has used a complex form of intermediate constitutional scrutiny-the Central Hudson analysis-when government regulations of commercial speech are challenged on First Amendment grounds. In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, the Court used this analysis for the first time to test the constitutionality of government restrictions on tobacco advertising. This article reviews the Court's commercial speech doctrine including previous treatment of governmental attempts to restrict harmful product advertising. The article then provides an overview of the national regulatory framework for tobacco advertising and analyzes the Supreme Court's 2001 opinion in Lorillard Tobacco. The article then explores the impact of the case on the Court's commercial speech doctrine and in subsequent lower court opinions.     

The Arendtian Dread: Courts with Power

Hannah Arendt was fearful not only of a populist President speaking in the name of the people and unbound by legality. She was also concerned that popular support could be harnessed by those responsible for limiting it. In other words, she was fearful of the American Supreme Court relying on popular support. This is the meaning of her obscure depiction of the American Supreme Court as “the true seat of authority in the American Republic” but unfit to power. I argue that Arendt's characterization of authority as requiring “neither coercion nor persuasion” means that the Court's source of legitimacy is expertise rather than public support. Yet the current dominant understanding among American Justices as well as scholars is that public support is the source of the Court's authority. In Arendt's mind, such an understanding means that the Court has become the seat of power. The corruption of the Court's authority and constitutional law as a language of expertise capable of resisting public opinion will inevitably follow.     

宪法在司法审判中的适用性研究

自建国以来,最高人民法院没有明确拒绝宪法在司法审判中的可适用性,但在具体司法实践中,更倾向于在民事审判领域将宪法作为司法审判的法律依据,对刑事审判和行政审判中能否适用宪法采取回避态度。地方人民法院在司法审判中适用宪法的情况呈现多样化和复杂化趋势。地方人民法院在司法审判中援引宪法作为判案依据必须谨慎而行,尽量避免涉及宪法解释和违宪审查的事项。但对于援引宪法能够强化审判案件中法律依据的合理性和法律效力的,可予以保留。     

The Jurisprudence of Precision: Contrast Space and Narrow Tailoring in First Amendment Doctrine

The United States Supreme Court often requires that laws regulating free speech be narrowly tailored. The narrow tailoring requirement lacks analytical rigor in the Court's opinions, however. This article analyzes narrow tailoring in the context of Alan Garfinkel's model of "contrast space," which facilitates an examination of the precise range of alternatives the Court considers in its decisions. The article offers suggestions for improving narrow tailoring jurisprudence with a more precise account of the process.     

中国宪法司法化路径探索

宪法实施中的违宪审查机制与宪法诉讼方式是两种不同机制的区别。在分析西方国家宪法实施的路径,以及中国实行宪法监督走违宪审查之路面临的困难后,根据违宪审查与宪法诉讼相别的理论,提出中国的宪法司法化方案,即违宪审查权仍由全国人大常委会行使,而由最高法院承担宪法诉讼的任务。