论公民、公民意识与法治国家

公民是法治国家的构成基本单位,公民意识是法治国家的心理基础和社会人文背景,二者都是西方政治思想家普遍关注的现象.法治国家意味着对人的主体地位的重视和对法治文化的尊重.法治国家不仅要以法律为基础,更要以具有法治精神的公民和公民意识为基础.     

公民意识:和谐社会的宪政品格

在对立中求统一、在差异中求共存、在矛盾中求协调,是宪政的重要功能和目标,也是现代和谐社会的基本利益价值法则。公民意识作为法律文化的组成部分是构建和谐社会的关键和衡量标准。和谐社会不仅要以法律为基础,更要以具有法治精神的公民为基础。本文指出应通过宪政建设唤起公民的主体身份意识、权利意识、民主参与意识、社会责任意识;而公民意识反过来又会促进宪政建设,以一种自觉性、集体性的的理性,保障公民的权利和自由和监督宪政国家更好地促进。     

论我国公民法律素质的培养与提升

公民的法律素质是指公民所具有的法律知识、法律意识和运用法律的能力与水平的综合体现,是公民的内在观念范式和外在行为方式的统一。法治社会的生成基础是市场经济、民主政治、市民社会和理性多元文化的组合。公民法律素质的培养提高与法治社会的生成基础之间密不可分,相互促进。因此,法治基础的培育过程就是公民法律素质的提高过程。     

我们为什么要培育公民意识

没有公民意识的主体自觉和思想观念,就不可能产生真正的法治国家理论。公民意识在法治国家理论建构中具有重要作用,是法治的思想基础和人文基础。公民意识是现代公民综合素质的重要构成,是社会成员对自己基本社会身份的自觉认同。在我国全面推进法治国家进程中,只有大力培育全体社会成员的公民意识,法治的构建才有坚实的思想认同和文化基础。     

浅谈公民意识的生成

公民意识是从法律制度规范走向现实法治秩序的重要桥梁。在建立社会主义法治国家的过程中，优良的公民意识能充分有效地使法治理念、法律制度最大限度地转化为人们的生活信念和准则，从而建立起普遍有效的法治秩序。而我国经历了漫长的封建社会，社会成员的公民意识先天不足，这对我国民主政治建设是十分不利的，为此，我们必须从全方位探讨建立孕育公民意识的生成机制，从而实现人的社会化、个性化、现代化。     

构建我国公民意识生成机制的探析

建设法治社会必须培育健全的公民意识。公民意识的生成是一个在市场经济民主政治的运行机 制中,在法治目标指引下,在法治建设实践中官员和民众双向互动的过程。培育公民意识应全方 位构建公民意识的生成机制。为此,必须建立健全市场经济体制,推进政治体制改革,建设民主 政治,承认并培育市民社会,公正立法与执法,开展公民教育,发展公民文化。     

和谐,从法治走向民主——公民民主气质的培育

民主是现代国家文明和社会文明的根本标志,本文通过分析公民独立的民主人格、公民社会的妥协意识、公民社会宽容理性以及公民的表达权利实现的基础,作者指出,公民的权利意识、现代社会的妥协宽容精神、公民参与社会的政治经济和社会生活的表达愿望的实现,并不能只是停留在观念和价值上,必须在法治的层面上寻求坚实的基础,公民的个人和群体的民主气质才能得到生成和发展,只有法治才是公民民主气质生长的肥沃土壤。     

试析法治建设中的公民参与

我国在国家层面推进法治建设有其合理性和必然性,但要真正建立起法治社会,公民的参与对社会法律信仰的建立和公民法治意识的形成是十分重要的.我国已经采取了一系列措施用来保障公民参与的机会和权利,但由于受现有制度设计、政治文化务件、公民主体意识等因素的制约,使公民参与法治建设缺少一定的广度和深度,需要我们在制度建设、人文环境优化以及公民主体意识的提升方面做出切实的努力.     

和谐，从法治走向民主——公民民主气质的培育

民主是现代国家文明和社会文明的根本标志，本文通过分析公民独立的民主人格、公民社会的妥协意识、公民社会宽容理性以及公民的表达权利实现的基础，作者指出，公民的权利意识、现代社会的妥协宽容精神、公民参与社会的政治经济和社会生活的表达愿望的实现，并不能只是停留在观念和价值上，必须在法治的层面上寻求坚实的基础，公民的个人和群体的民主气质才能得到生成和发展，只有法治才是公民民主气质生长的肥沃土壤。     

法律下的中国：一个构建法治中国的法理议题

构建法治中国是中国当代社会的基本共识,也是执政党法治观的集中表达。共同建设法治观和一体建设法治观建立在法律的同一性原则上,也承认了国家、执政党和社会的相对独立性。执政党法治观是构建中国国家法治观的前提,其落脚点在于对中国国家共同体的具体阐释。从法律的规范角度理解中国国家共同体,显示出其与历史中国、文化中国和政治中国等视角在方法论、内容上和目标上的差异。法律共同体揭示了公民身份对法治中国的构成性功能。法律下的中国作为一个时代命题需要处理政府集权和行政集权、宪法建制与公民忠诚、全球规则与中国国家行为等关系,破解国家权力高度统一与集体能力低下的历史悖论,创造国家治理能力法治化的总体性方案。     

Legal Vices and Civic Virtue: Vice Crimes, Republicanism and the Corruption of Lawfulness

Vice crimes, crimes prohibited in part because they are viewed as morally corrupting, engage legal theorists because they reveal importantly contrasting views between liberals and virtue-centered theorists on the very limits of legitimate state action. Yet advocates and opponents alike focus on the role law can play in suppressing personal vice; the role of law is seen as suppressing licentiousness, sloth, greed etc. The most powerful advocates of the position that the law must nurture good character often draw on Aristotelian theories of virtue to ground the connection between law and virtue. While Aristotle believed that law and character were linked, it is ironic to note that he did not argue for the position evidenced in our vice laws that law was likely to succeed in instilling virtue. Indeed, Aristotle thought the project of using law to instill private virtue was nearly certain to fail. Aristotle’s deep concern was not for the way law protected private virtue within each person but the way law had to protect civic virtue between citizens. This article argues that even from its foundations, the project of vice crimes as moral instruction is misconceived. The use of law for overly instrumental or narrow reasons opens law and legal institutions to abuse and factionalism. Lawyers, judges and others specially connected to law must first and foremost aim at addressing “legal vices,” vices internal to the institutions of law. Particularly, increasing factionalism and instrumentalism which disconnects law from the pursuit of the common good threatens our civic bonds. Most importantly, where civic bonds are disrupted, citizens have no reason to remain law abiding. The striking lesson, captured both in ancient philosophy and modern history, is that when legal vices grow unchecked and factions use the law to pursue narrow interests, ultimately law abidingness is corrupted and interest groups harm themselves as much as others.     

On the formal rationality of commercial law in common law system

Common law traditionally contains the formal rationality of commercial law. According to common law tradition, there is no possibility of preventing commercial law from being formalized. Formalization of commercial law in common law system is an institutional demand of market economy and is jointly promoted by the legal tradition of common law countries. The commercial law in the two legal systems indicates that the commercial law is made depending on the market economy and the form of commercial law is restricted by legal tradition. The formalization and assimilation of commercial law are an internal need as well as an inevitable trend in the course of economic development.     

公私法的划分与法的内在结构

公私法的划分是法理学的基本问题之一 ,也是建设中国特色社会主义法律体系必须解决的一个基本问题。本文回顾了公私法划分的历史 ,评析了学者们关于公私法划分的根据 ,对公私法的含义进行了新的阐释 ,认为公私法的划分是法的内在结构问题 ,划分公私法的直接根据是法律调整的不同方法 ,而法律调整的方法 ,基本上或主要地决定于法律调整的对象。明确这一问题 ,有利于澄清长期困扰法理学界的一些重要问题 ,以便根据法律调整对象的不同和实际生活的需要 ,选择最佳的法律调整方法 ,这对建设中国特色社会主义法律体系具有重大的指导意义     

民法本质追求探究

作为部门法的民法,源自古代欧洲的罗马法,当时叫“市民法”,后被注入“私法”、“私权法”、“市民社会的法”等诸多信息。中国通过日本从西方民法及至罗马私法那里继受了作为表征基本部门法的民法。西方传统理解民法或私法的实质含义,是在个人与国家对立的基础上进行的。民法以人为中心,以权利为基点,以行为手段,以责任为保障。民法上的人即市民、私人和私主体,含自然人、法人、非法人团体等。近代社会的个人是个人主义的个人,而现代的个人是兼顾社会乃至自然理念中的个人。称民法人是“经济人”、“具体人”、“抽象人”等多是用作分析民法问题的方法。兼顾社会乃至自然的个人主义和自由主义是民法的哲学基础。民法并未真正社会化。民法所涉及的领域是有限的。民法在精神方面追求平等和自由。这些都涉及到民法本位即民法的中心任务和价值标准问题。     

英国刑法犯罪故意的构造分析

我国刑法学界对于英国刑法中的犯罪故意在理解上值得反思,英国刑法犯罪故意需从判例法和制定法这个角度加以理解.将英国判例法立场的变化归纳为几种并存的学说不够客观,同时,认为英国刑法在该问题上是以认识为本质理解犯罪故意的观点也不能成立.英国判例法在这个问题上既有原则性又有灵活性,尽管这种弹性是我国司法部门不可能做到的,但是英国刑法同样对于我们具有一定的借鉴意义.     

Negligence and Human Rights Law: The Case for Separate Development

A number of judges and academics have argued in favour of the convergence of negligence law with human rights law. By contrast, the thesis of this article is that the two legal orders should develop independently, so that for the most part the law of negligence ought not to be affected by human rights considerations. It is argued that the case for convergence is based on two false assumptions, namely that human rights law and negligence law perform similar functions within our legal order and that the norms of human rights law are more fundamental than the norms encapsulated in negligence law. It is also argued that convergence would undermine the coherence of negligence law. Ultimately, the case for separate development rests on the desirability of recognising public law and private law as autonomous normative systems with their own distinctive rationales, concepts and core principles.     

国内公法对国际法的影响

国际法包括私法意义上的国际法和公法意义上的国际法。近现代国际法本质上是一种私法意义上的国际法,但国际交往的日益频繁与复杂必然要求建立某种形式的等级制与集中化架构,公法意义上的国际法应运而生。作为一种后发的法律秩序,国际法受到较为成熟的国内法的影响是很自然的。在借鉴国内公法发展国际法时面临某些重要的障碍,也会产生不可忽视的风险,应该予以充分的注意。国内公法日益影响国际法的趋势对于中国的国际法理论与实践将产生重要的影响。     

劳动刑法若干问题研究

劳动刑法是西方国家刑法学的一个重要分支学科.无论是从劳动刑法存在的现实基础,还是从劳动刑法的研究对象、内容、目标以及基本结构上分析,均可认为劳动刑法具有独立的刑法学分支学科地位.人类社会发展表明,劳动权是人权的重要组成部分,是公民生存权与发展权的基本内容.因此,保护以基本人权为外壳的劳动法益,应当是劳动刑法存在的起点与终点.基于有效、有力保护劳动法益的需要,我国亦应从"大刑法"中分解出劳动刑法,专门对之进行系统化、理性化的研究.     

Don’t Occupy This Movement: Thinking Law in Social Movements

Reflecting on the Occupy movement, particularly Occupy Wall Street, this article begins by addressing two major questions: how are social movements understood by legal academics; and how do social movements engage with law? Our aim is to present an alternative frame to understanding law and social movements. We draw on the work of Jean-Luc Nancy to explore law as both present and constituted in the coming together of persons in common which occurs in social movements. While the Occupy movement does engage with a form of law that is legislated and enacted through the government and legal system of a nation-state, the movement also forms and enacts law as part of its own processes. In this article we shift perspectives and attempt to think law within social movements. This involves a critical reading of some dominant approaches that explore social movements and law. Rather than situate our discussion within boundaries that seek to identify what is inside or outside a law and legal system that is determined and enforced by a nation-state (government and judicial system), our discussion of law involves a re-thinking of law. This law is part of a constant negotiation and it is involved in the dynamic processes of movements. Law involves establishing a limit and tracing this limit, but this limit is un-working itself as soon as it is constituted. The Occupy movements live law by existing not outside the law, but by rethinking the role and function of law in the movement and processes of community.     

论"动物不是物"的法理基础

从生命的起源上来看,动物和人都是作为地球的生命形式而存在的。将动物看作客体是"人类中心主义"思想在 法律上的表现,而在推行环保主义、生态主义和实施可持续发展战略的今天,赋予动物法律主体地位不仅仅是法 律做出的技术改良,更是一种构建在"非人类中心主义"基础上的全新中国法理念。