The Uses of the Outputs of the International Law Commission in International Adjudication: Subsidiary Means or Artefacts of Rules?

This paper examines the methods which international courts and tribunals (ICTs) employ when using ILC outputs for the purpose of determining rules of international law and their content. Specifically, it identifies common patterns in the ways in which ICTs, first, justify their reliance on ILC outputs and, second, deal with their ambiguities. The paper argues in favour of a consistent methodology for the treatment of ILC outputs in international adjudication. Such a framework is based on the distinction between the identification of the status of a normative proposition contained in these texts and the determination of its content or its interpretation. The identification of the status of a normative proposition requires a critical assessment and reconstruction of the evidence leading up to its development taking also into account that these instruments are not a monolith from the perspective of sources. However, the interpretation of a proposition whose status is uncontested follows a line of inquiry akin to treaty interpretation. This observation has broader implications for the process of interpretation in international law. Specifically, apart from the context of treaty interpretation, international courts or tribunals interpret the normative propositions contained in ILC outputs as a methodological shortcut for the interpretation of rules of customary international law or general principles of law. Conversely, the employment of methods akin to treaty interpretation in this context can constitute evidence of the emergence of common rules, principles, or good practices of interpretation that are also applicable to unwritten international law.

     

论WTO争端解决机构对一般法律原则的借鉴与发展

一般法律原则作为国际法的渊源,在具体内容和适用上颇有异议,但在最新的国际立法和司法实践中其内涵已经逐渐明确。WTO争端解决机制在实践中创造性地适用了国内法理的一般原则,凸显了一般法律原则的法源意义。我国的涉外司法实践应当关注国际司法实践的发展,并采取积极的应对策略。     

法律原则在法律推理中的地位和作用——一个比较的研究

我国关于法律原则的讨论一般集中在立法过于笼统与立法所规定的法律基本原则这两个方面。这种意义上的法律原则与德沃金所说的法律原则存在重要区别。德沃金关于法律原则的讨论其目的是强调法律的确定性 ,而我们关于法律原则的讨论却在强化法律的模糊性。法律原则的讨论主要涉及法律推理过程中原则与规则之间的关系。基于法治的原因 ,法律推理必须坚持将法律规则作为法律推理的大前提 ;在法律规则含义不明确、模糊或者相互矛盾时 ,可以使用法律原则 ,但是 ,必须经过一定的法律原则的认定程序。     

改革开放以来我国民族立法观刍议

民族立法观是支配民族立法乃至整个民族法制工作的重要指导思想。改革开放以来,我国民族立法工作取得的快速发展是坚持科学民族立法观的必然结果。当前指导我国民族立法工作的根本指针就是邓小平理论、＂三个代表＂重要思想、科学发展观中的民族立法观。认真理解和准确把握这些内涵丰富、与时俱进的民族立法思想,对于进一步健全具有中国特色社会主义的民族法律法规体系而言意义重大。     

空白罪状适用的规范性解释——以前置性规范为中心

空白罪状的适用是以法律、法规的前置性规范判断为基础。前置性规范中"国家规定"的法律位阶应进行限制性解释,不包括操作纪律、习惯等非规范性形式;立足于空白罪状双重违法性的结构,依据缓和的违法性理论,前置性规范必须有违法性要件的明确提示,而不必然有刑事责任条款,对前置性规范适用采取以直接补充为主、二次间接补充为辅的限制原则,对于体系有冲突的应以刑法规范和刑法概念为准,坚持刑法解释的独立性品格;按照刑法的实质解释的原理运用以法益为指导目的的解释方法,法益制约着具体空白刑法条文所参照的前置性规范范围,按照法益同一性规则还可以适用的扩张与限缩解释。前置性规范的变动适用中,应承认前置性规范的刑法间接渊源地位,以实质的罪刑法定原则为判断基准,前置性规范的溯及力应按照从旧兼从轻的适用规则。     

紧急状态的宪法实施机制与完善路径

我国宪法紧急状态确立了立法机关保留、法律优先原则、要式职权行为、比例原则等法定实施标准,但在实践中,由于《传染病防治法》等单行立法包含了事实上的紧急状态非常措施,且专门的紧急状态法缺位,导致国家决定和宣布紧急状态面临困难,紧急状态下应当由全国人大常委会另行规定的非常措施缺失,基层实践中出现以应急状态之名行紧急状态之实的争议。完善国家非常状态法治建设,关键是加强紧急状态的宪法实施工作,当前,紧急状态立法应遵循上位法、关系法、平衡法的原则,宜采取一般法与单行法相结合的渐进模式。紧急状态宪法实施需规范行政职权行为,落实全国人大常委会"另行规定"、法律监督、执法检查、答复法律询问等职权。     

法律上国家安全概念探析

近年来,学术界对国家安全的界定大多仅从国际关系的视角出发,见仁见智。我国的立法也陆续将国家安全作为一个专门术语写进了相关的法律及规范性文件。国家安全作为一个法律专门术语,对其解释不应是随意的,应当从法律上作出明确的科学界定和立法解释。国家安全表征着一国宪政法律制度的正常稳定状态,是一种特殊的法律秩序。从法律上科学界定国家安全,有助于实现国家安全法制的统一性、严肃性,也有助于开展国家安全法学理论的研究。     

Authentic Interpretation

I approach the identification of the principles of legal interpretation through a discussion of an important but largely forgotten strand in our legal heritage: the idea (and at some points in English law, the rule) that the interpretation of legislation is to be done by the lawmaker. The idea that authentic interpretation is interpretation by the lawmaker united the Roman emperors Constantine and Justinian with Bracton, Aquinas, King James I of England, Hobbes, and Bentham. Already in the early 17th century, a new modern approach was emerging in England. The modern approach separates the interpretive power from the legislative power, and allocates the interpretive power to an independent court. I argue that there are some cogent, general considerations in favour of the modern approach. But it is worth identifying the elements of good sense that made it seem that the interpretive power ought to be reserved for the lawmaker. And it is worth identifying the drawbacks in the modern approach; I argue that they are highly relevant to the complex question of how judges ought to interpret legislation.     

Corpus Linguistics as a Method of Legal Interpretation: Some Progress,Some Questions

Corpus linguistics is becoming a respected method of statutory and constitutional interpretation in the United States over the past decade, yet it has also generated a backlash from a group of scholars that engage in empirical work. This essay attempts to demonstrate both the contributions and the risks of using linguistic corpora as a primary tool in legal interpretation. Its legitimacy stems from the fact that courts routinely state that statutory terms, when not defined as a matter of law, are to be given their ordinary meaning. Judges have responded to this challenge, with the assistance of the linguistics community, by using corpora to determine which meanings are ordinary. However, legal analysts have not determined exactly what makes one meaning ordinary and another not ordinary. This gap has led to a level of disagreement in the field. Moreover, while linguists who engage in corpus linguistic analysis typically emphasize the importance of context, the legal application is peculiarly context-free, in keeping with legal philosophies that eschew reliance on reference to a law’s purpose and the intent of the legislature that enacted it. This move adds a political dimension to corpus analysis as a means of legal interpretation. Yet, the article concludes that by relying on a blend of general and specialized corpora, the legal system can substantially reduce the problem of contextualization, as some linguists and practitioners have already recognized.

     

论《涉外民事关系法律适用法》与《民法通则》的关系

《涉外民事关系法律适用法》与《民法通则》之间的关系,涉及到我国上位法与下位法的关系、特别法与一般法的关系、新法与旧法的关系等一系列法理;也涉及到了我国宪法和《立法法》的规定。《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第二条的"特别规定"规定导致该法成为一般法,《民法通则》的一些规定成为特别法的倒置现象。而第五十一条前款的规定则是以作为普通法律的《涉外民事关系适用法》排除了作为基本法律的《民法通则》条文的适用。为了解决二者之间的法律竞合,可以有三种办法:启动修改法律的程序;启动立法解释的程序;提升《涉外民事关系法律适用法》为基本法律。     

论著作权侵权一般条款——著作权侵权与救济立法模式探讨

包括知识产权制度在内的法律制度是一个有机体系,其法律解释和适用应当在体系化思维的指导下进行。就著作权制度而言,基于著作权是一种民事权利,应当将著作权制度作为民法的一个有机组成部分来建构、理解和适用。在体系化思维指导下,考虑到著作权制度回应社会实践、发展和进化的需要,著作权制度应当从"具体规定性"逐渐过渡到"抽象规定性"的立法模式。就著作权救济制度而言,应当设立著作权侵权一般条款,同时,考虑到著作权制度明晰化和可操作性的需要,也应当就实践中已经成熟的著作权样态作类型化处理,并且将处理后的典型侵权行为以列举的方式规定在著作权法中。换言之,著作权救济制度应当采取"一般条款+列举式规定"的立法模式。     

论修改《环境保护法》的几个问题

贯彻"十八大"关于"大力推进生态文明建设"的精神,将1989年《环境保护法》修改成对我国今后环境资源生态保护工作具有基础指导作用、长期引导作用、全面激励作用的综合性法律、政策性法律。修改后的法律应该是将生态文明建设摆在国家"五位一体建设总布局"突出位置、具有生态法特征的综合性法律;应该申明、宣示和规定环境法的基本理念、基本原则;明确规定公民的基本环境权利和义务,公民有享用清洁、健康的环境的权利,有保护环境的义务;明确规定环境公益诉讼;明确政府的环境责任,健全政府环境责任问责制;规定基本的环境法律制度和重要的环境法律措施,规定政策环境影响评价。     

我国农业投资立法略论

现代化农业的建设离不开对农业科学持续大量的投入,加强农业投资立法,从法律层面明确各农业投资主体的权利义务,严格规范各投资主体的农业投资活动,为农业投资行为提供法律的确定性和可预见性具有重要意义.农业投资立法应当以财政资金引导多元投入原则、保护各投资主体合法利益原则、农业可持续发展原则和科学管理与有效监督原则为指导,在明确各农业投资主体法律地位的基础上构建以《农业法》为核心的农业投资法律体系.     

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.     

关于行政问责法治化的思考

行政问责法治化对于反腐败具有重要作用。本文在分析行政问责法治化的科学内涵、基本原则和意义的基础上,从完善行政问责法律体系、加强行政问责执法制度建设、完善行政问责法治化的相关法律制度等方面提出对策。以期对全面推进行政问责法治化,建设责任型政府有所助益。     

陕甘宁边区民事法律创制的主要方式探析

边区政府创制民事法律的活动,是边区法制建设中的重要环节。在创制民事法律的过程中,边区政府采用了单行法为主的法律创制方式,同时,又以自主创制民事法律与有条件地援引国民政府法令相结合,自立创制与有条件地援引国民政府法令相结合,成文法与习惯法互补,法的实施与司法解释,重点创制与逐步完善相结合,以及采取概括式与列举式和划分总则与分则的立法技术。这些方式,使边区的民事立法与边区的实际紧密结合,其所坚持的实事求是的精神和重视调查研究,注重法律创制和边区的社会发展阶段相适应的做法,为当代中国的法律建设,提供了有益的历史经验。     

医疗立法探讨

医疗立法是保障公民健康权的重要途径，是我国卫生法制建设的重要内容，是保证新医改关于医疗服务体系健全和公立医院改革顺利进行的重要保障之一，是依法卫生行政的内在要求。在分析医疗法立法的依据和-原则后，借鉴Et本、德国、台湾医疗立法经验，建议以总则、医疗法人制度、医疗安全保障、病人权益保护、信息公开制度、监督管理体制、法律责任作为医疗法的基本框架，并就我国医疗立法的相关问题进行探讨。     

作为专家证人的语言学家在立法和司法活动中的价值

法学与语言学的日趋融合，法律语言学成为人们研究的热点，语言学家的价值也日益凸现在立法和司法活动中。从立法层面观之，法律语言学家的介入将使法律文本更能体现其应有的文体特征，有助于改变世界各国普遍存在的立法失范化状况；从司法实践层面而言，语言学家的介入，将有助于解决因法规、合同等法律文本的不同诠释而产生的争议，使司法活动更合乎正义性要求。建议我国法学界给予语言学家施展其专业才能的空间，以此肯定语言学家的地位和价值，这将有助于完善我国现有的专家证人制度，从而实现法学界和语言学界的“双赢”。     

我国法律解释中的五大悖论

我国的法制建设中,存在着几个悖论,一是法律的整体化与立法现实;二是法律解释的科学化与法官的素质;三是正义价值的内生化与传统思想;四是成文法形式的发展与认识;五是法律解释的演进与我国法律建设。这些问题都需要我们进行长期的努力才能解决。