近代民事主体形成的条件与成因

近代民事主体理念超越了具体平等而实现于抽象平等。没有平等观念就没有抽象平等,没有抽象平等也就没有近代民事主体。“平等主体”从根本上反映了人在资本主义生产方式中的经济存在形式。近代民事主体理论形成的基础就是劳动力私人性的承认和契约工具的利用。契约是近代民事主体得以确立的工具。劳动力私人性的承认是近代民事主体得以确立的内在理论前提。民法中劳动力私人性的法律表现形态是随着劳动力价值的提升而展开的。保障劳动力私人性就是在维护民法的主体制度,其中,宪政的保障作用是基础性的、不可或缺的。     

私法中身份的再发现

私法中的身份是个人在市民社会关系中具有私法意义的定位与相应的利益份额。身份调整结构性的社会关系，体现了综合形态的私益，是社会意思的私法效果。平等人格形成于近代家庭功能裂变，个人从家庭中析出，成为私法调整的基本单位；但是，从家庭中析出的个人，又通过身份契约进入企业等社团之中，获得新的身份。近代社会契约与身份同时勃兴，而私法只关注于契约。身份顺应社会变化演变出新的功能形式，现代私法中的身份与平等人格相兼容，与自由契约相补充。身份提供包括权利、义务、权力、责任的制度框架进行综合调整，依“身”定“份”，发挥调整功能。     

人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁——兼论德国民法中的权利能力

人格是特定社会的准入条件,因而生物人与法律人的分离,乃是法律人格制度的基本模式。这个模式中核心的要素,就是法律人格的“适格判断”的标准。在法律文明的早期,血缘、地域、财产等身份要素,充当着法律人格的判别标准,由此所引起的身份人格必然带有不平等的色彩。近代法律人格的基本特点,就是个人的伦理属性成为了法律人格的适格标准,由此奠定了近代法律人人平等的基础。《德国民法典》上的“权利能力”概念,是由实定法所界定的法律人格的适格条件,这一实定法上的概念,仍然是建立在关于人的伦理性判断的基础之上的。     

人格与财产的关系——兼论法国民法的“总体财产”理论

罗马法以财产和地域为基础的身份人格,人的伦理价值被排斥于人格的构成之外,罗马法上的“财产”之享有,乃是“人格”享有之标志。在古典自然法学说和理性主义思潮的影响下,人的理性与价值得以在实在法中成为人格的基础,财产要素在人格基础上被摒除。较之于法国民法总体财产的“财产能力”或者“财产权利能力”本质而未能扬弃强烈的人格的伦理性,德国民法中的权利能力彻底张扬了人格的权利载体意义,并且为民法的发展创造了至关重要的条件。从而可以说,财产、伦理要素从人格中不断剥离正是人格平等的历史进程。那种将财产作为人格要素的认识,乃是以否定人格平等的近代法律的基本价值作为代价的。     

八议、官当

在中国封建社会里，官员和贵族总是会堂而皇之地得到特别的优待、享有特别的权利，可能很多人都不知道，其实这些“优待、宽宥、特权”都是有法律依据的。中国古代社会是宗法等级社会，法律中贯穿着不平等的精神和原则，规定了很多的特权法，其中最有代表性的就是“八议、官当”制度。     

契约与身份:民法主体与经济法主体的差异分析

“从身份到契约”的运动带来了近代民法的弘扬,而社会的发展带来了近代民法“契约”精神向经济法“身份”观念的转变,然而经济的进一步发展又要求限制“身份”的日益扩张,从而使得民法“契约”精神得以回归.在这种历史循环背景下来考察民法主体与经济法主体的差异,就会发现两者在人本哲学基础、社会价值演进和主体类型划分三方面的截然不同.     

法律史上人格制度的演化

不同的时代有关于人格的不同的立法政策，在法制史上，人格制度经历了身份化、理性化以及普遍化三个不同的发展阶段。在人格的身份化时期，法律以等级制“身份”为依据，将一部分人宣布为法律上的“非人”；在人格的理性化时期，强调人格的理性内核，同样将妇女、奴仆等排除在人格的拥有者之外。只有在人格的普遍化时期，法律上才承认每个人都是拥有平等人格的法律主体，由此在人格制度上完成了法律由野蛮、专横到文明、人道的演化。     

"观念权利"在古代中国的缺失--从文化根源的比较视角论私权的产生基础

本文意在为中国的私权研究寻找切入点。有关财产、契约制度的丰富史料和古人有关“定分止争”的确权思想 ,表明古代中国有发达的财产、契约等“实在权利” ,缺失的是包含人之平等、自由等主体意识的“观念权利”。通过对中、西传统文化根源的比较研究 ,得出人有无自觉主体意识以及法律对主体资格的承认与否是两种文化差异的最显著表现 ,即古代中国以身份和等级观念为根基的“礼治”和“儒教”思想从开始便漠视人的主体性 ,而西方以自然哲学为根基的自然法理论从开始就注意并强调人的主体性。该差异引致了“观念权利”起源于西方而非中国。因此 ,私权研究应从主体性开始     

经济法的实质正义观及其实现

形式正义和实质正义分别属于近代和现代法律分配权利和义务的价值观念。形式正义是按照绝对平等和自由的原则分配权利和义务,而实质正义则是根据主体身份特征进行倾斜式分配。实质正义不但促进了民法的社会化,而且催生了经济法和社会法的诞生。实质正义首先通过立法环节转化为具体的权利和义务规范及法律责任,其次通过行政和司法机关得以实现。     

论严复自由主义的法律思想

<正> 严复是近代“中国资产阶级主要的启蒙思想家”,他把资产阶级的功利主义、自由、平等观念引入中国法律思想领域,并运用西方18世纪、特别是19世纪英国自由主义法学观点,揭露和批判封建专制主义及其腐朽的法律制度,论证中国变法图强的必要性、迫切性以及建立资产阶级法律制度对于国家富强、社会进步的作用。这对于中国近代法律思想领域中反封建的民主思潮的发展,对于推动我国从封建主义法学转变到资产阶级法学的新阶段,促进法学的中西融通,都起了重要作用”。在一定意义上可以说,严复开创性的工作与沈家本为促使中国法制近代化的修律实践交相辉映,构成了中国近代法律史上的一幅绚丽图画。     

Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana on Avidyā

The concept of avidyā is one of the central categories in the Advaita of Śaṇkara and Maṇḍana. Shifting the focus from māyā, interpreted either as illusion or as the divine power, this concept brings ignorance to the forefront in describing duality and bondage. Although all Advaitins accept avidyā as a category, its scope and nature is interpreted in multiple ways. Key elements in Maṇḍana’s philosophy include the plurality of avidyā, individual selves as its substrate and the Brahman as its field (viṣaya), and the distinction in avidyā between non-apprehension and misapprehension. A closer investigation shows that Maṇḍana is directly influenced by Bhartṛhari’s linguistic non-dualism in developing the concept of avidyā. This study also compares other key constituents such as vivartta and pariṇāma that are relevant to the analysis of avidyā. As the concept of counter-image (pratibimba) emerges as a distinct stream of Advaita subsequent to Maṇḍana, this study also compares the application of pratibimba in the writings of Bhartṛhari and Maṇḍana.     

Unraveling the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Kāvyaprakāśa</Emphasis>: Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa’s idiosyncratic sequence of topics in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Candrāloka</Emphasis>

In his twelfth century alaṃkāraśāstra, the Candrāloka, Jayadeva Pīyūṣavarṣa reverses the sequence of topics found in Mammaṭa’s Kāvyapr-akāśa, an earlier and immensely popular work. With such a structural revisionism, Jayadeva asserts the autonomy of his own work and puts forth an ambitious critique of earlier approaches to literary analysis. Jayadeva investigates the technical and aesthetic components of poetry in the first part of the Candrāloka, prior to his formal semantic investigations in the latter half of the text, thus suggesting that aesthetic evaluations of poetry beneficially inform scientific investigations of language. Jayadeva’s organization of his chapters on the semantic operations, moreover, intimates that the study of suggestive and metaphoric functions of language clarifies our understanding of denotation, which is conventionally understood to be the primary and direct path of verbal designation.     

Immigration,intermarriage and the changing face of Europe in the post war period

In this article we compare the propensity to intermarry of various migrant groups and their children who settled in Germany, France, England, Belgium and the Netherlands in the post-war period, using a wide range of available statistical data. We try to explain different intermarriage patterns within the framework of Alba and Nee's assimilation theory and pay special attention to the role of religion, colour and colonial background. We therefore compare colonial with non colonial migrants and within these categories between groups with ‘European’ (Christian) and non-European (Islam, Hinduism) religions. First of all, religion appears to be an important variable. Migrants whose faith has no tradition in Western Europe intermarry at a much lower rate than those whose religious backgrounds correspond with those that are common in the country of settlement. The rate of ethnic endogamous marriages in Western Europe are highest in Hindu and Muslim communities, often regardless if they came as guest workers or colonial migrants. Whereas differences in religion diminish the propensity to intermarry, colour or ‘racial’ differences on the other hand seem to be less important. This is largely explained by the pre-migration socialisation. Furthermore, the paper argues that the attention to institutions, as rightly advocated by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, needs a more refined and layered elaboration. Institutions, often as barriers to intermarriage, do not only emanate from the receiving society, but also—be it less formalized—within migrant communities. Especially religions and family systems, but also organized nationalist feelings, can have a profound influence on how migrants think about endogamy. Finally, strong pressures to assimilate, often through institutionalized forms of discrimination and stigmatization, not only produce isolation and frustrate assimilation (with resulting low intermarriage rates), but can also stimulate assimilation by 'passing' mechanisms. These factors, together with a more comparative perspective, are not completely ignored in the new assimilation theory, but—as this study of Western European intermarriage patterns stresses—deserve to be included more systematically in historical and social scientist analyses.     

Turning a Madhyamaka Trick: Reply to Huntington

Huntington (2007); argues that recent commentators (Robinson, 1957; Hayes, 1994; Tillemans, 1999; Garfield and Priest, 2002) err in attributing to Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti a commitment to rationality and to the use of argument, and that these commentators do violence to the Madhyamaka project by using rational reconstruction in their interpretation of Nāgārjuna’s and Candrakīrti’s texts. Huntington argues instead that mādhyamikas reject reasoning, distrust logic and do not offer arguments. He also argues that interpreters ought to recuse themselves from argument in order to be faithful to these texts. I demonstrate that he is wrong in all respects: Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti deploy arguments, take themselves to do so, and even if they did not, we would be wise to do so in commenting on their texts.     

The Supreme Array Scripture: A New Interpretation of the Title “Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra”

This article argues for a new interpretation of the Sanskrit compound gaṇḍa-vyūha as it is used in the common title of the Mahāyāna text the Gaṇḍavyūha-Sūtra.The author begins by providing a brief history of the sūtra’s appellations in Chinese and Tibetan sources. Next, the meanings of gaṇḍa (the problematic member of the compound) are explored. The author proposes that contemporary scholars have overlooked a meaning of gaṇḍa occurring in some compounds, wherein gaṇḍa can mean simply “great,” “big” or “massive.” This general sense is particularly common in the compound gaṇda-śaila (a “massive rock” or “boulder”) and is found in such texts as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, the Harivaṃśa and the Harṣacarita. Following the discussion of Gaṇḍa, the author examines the term vyūha (“array”) as it is used in the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra. The article concludes with the suggestion that a more appropriate translation of the Gaṇḍavyūha-sūtra would be “The Supreme array Scripture.”     

The Mūlāvidyā Controversy Among Advaita Vedāntins: was Śaṅkara Himself Responsible?

The concept of avidyā or ignorance is central to the Advaita Vedāntic position of Śȧnkara. The post-Śaṅkara Advaitins wrote sub-commentaries on the original texts of Śaṅkara with the intention of strengthening his views. Over the passage of time the views of these sub-commentators of Śaṅkara came to be regarded as representing the doctrine of Advaita particularly with regard to the concept of avidyā. Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, a scholar-monk of Holenarsipur, challenged the accepted tradition through the publication of his work Mūlāvidyānirāsaḥ, particularly with regard to the avidyādoctrine. It was his contention that the post-Śaṅkara commentators brought their own innovations particularly on the nature of avidyā. This was the idea of mūlāvidyā or ‘root ignorance’, a positive entity which is the material cause of the phenomenal world. Saraswati argues that such an idea of mūlāvidyā is not to be found in the bhāṣyas (commentaries) of Śaṅkara and is foisted upon Śaṅkara. This paper attempts to show that although Śaṅkara may not have explicitly favoured such a view of mūlāvidyā, his lack of clarity on the nature of avidyā left enough scope for the post-Śaṅkara commentators to take such a position on avidyā.     

Evaluation of six presumptive tests for blood, their specificity, sensitivity, and effect on high molecular-weight DNA

Luminol, leuchomalachite green, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, Hemident, and Bluestar are all used as presumptive tests for blood. In this study, the tests were subjected to dilute blood (from 1:10,000 to 1:10,000,000), many common household substance, and chemicals. Samples were tested for DNA to determine whether the presumptive tests damaged or destroyed DNA. The DNA loci tested were D2S1338 and D19S433. Leuchomalachite green had a sensitivity of 1:10,000, while the remaining tests were able to detect blood to a dilution of 1:100,000. Substances tested include saliva, semen, potato, tomato, tomato sauce, tomato sauce with meat, red onion, red kidney bean, horseradish, 0.1 M ascorbic acid, 5% bleach, 10% cupric sulfate, 10% ferric sulfate, and 10% nickel chloride. Of all the substances tested, not one of the household items reacted with every test; however, the chemicals did. DNA was recovered and amplified from luminol, phenolphthalein, Hemastix, and Bluestar, but not from leuchomalachite green or Hemident.     

Illumination,Imagination, Creativity: Rājaśekhara,Kuntaka, and Jagannātha on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pratibhā</Emphasis>

Sanskrit poeticians make the visionary faculty of pratibhā a necessary part of the professional poet’s make-up. The term has a pre-history in Bhartṛhari’s linguistic metaphysics, where it is used to explain the unitary perception of meaning. This essay examines the relation between pratibhā and possible theories of the imagination, with a focus on three unusual theoreticians—Rājaśekhara, Kuntaka, and Jagannātha Paṇḍita. Rājaśekhara offers an analysis of pratibhā that is heavily interactive, requiring the discerning presence of the bhāvaka listener or critic; he also positions pratibhā in relation to Bildung (vyutpatti) and practice. For Kuntaka, pratibhā, never an ex nihilo creation by a poet, serves as the basis for the peculiar forms of intensified insight and experience that constitute poetry; these may also involve the creative scrambling and re-articulation of the object in terms of its systemic composition. At times, Kuntaka’s pratibhā comes close to a strong notion of imaginative process. But the full-fledged thematization of the imagination, and of pratibhā as its support and mechanism, is best seen in the seventeenth-century debates preserved for us by Jagannātha. A link is suggested between the discourse of poetic imagination in Jagannātha and similar themes that turn up in Indo-Persian poets such as Bedil.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.