Volatile Sovereignty: Governing Crime through the Community in Khayelitsha

This paper asks what crime prevention looks like for residents in informal settlements in Khayelitsha, a black township on the outskirts of Cape Town. It engages with the idea of vigilantism and hybrid policing formations, analyzing the overlaps and intersections between legal community‐based crime prevention initiatives, and local ‘punitive practices’. The focus is not on the intensely violent spectacle of ‘mob justice’, where suspects are killed, but on the more ubiquitous, hybrid formations that also fall on the vigilantism continuum. These include coercive practices such as banishment, corporal punishment, retrieval of stolen goods by local policing formations and, trials conducted by street committees. The core argument I make is that, at times, particularly in poor areas where the state is absent and encourages citizens to take responsibility for their own crime prevention, the boundary between legality and coercive illegality collapses in on itself. Thus, the notion of voluntarism, that is so important to official discourse on crime, is particularly problematic when applied in poor communities with high rates of unemployment and high crime rates. As such, the state's encouraging of citizens to take responsibility for their own safety, alongside a punitive state discourse on crime and criminality, creates the space for illegal vigilante style actions to emerge in the shadow of legal crime prevention initiatives.     

论构成要件理论的违法行为类型说

为了克服构成要件的行为类型说在体系上的不足,在刑法学中出现了构成要件的违法行为类型说,该学说是日本刑法学中构成要件理论的通说观点。以构成要件与违法性的关系为标准,违法行为类型说又可以分为认识根据说和存在根据说。认识根据说认为构成要件与违法性是相互独立的存在,但是行为如果该当构成要件就可以推定其具有违法性;存在根据说认为构成要件本身就是类型化了的不法,是违法性的价值实体。     

三大部门法视野下阶层式犯罪体系之暗合研究

德日的刑法、民法与行政法皆明确区分违法和责任,形成了三大部门一致的违法(犯罪)构成体系。与四要件犯罪体系相比较,阶层式犯罪体系明确区分违法和责任,准确反映了刑法的内在体系,在判断过程的层次性、逻辑体系的周延性、犯罪客体、正当行为定位、违法阻却事由和责任阻却事由区分、保安处分等方面更有优势,具有实质合理性。我国刑法、民商法和行政法在立法、司法解释、司法判例等诸多方面均暗含着违法和责任的影子,默契支持着阶层式犯罪论体系。     

Gender ‘Hostility’, Rape,and the Hate Crime Paradigm

This article examines whether crimes motivated by, or which demonstrate, gender ‘hostility’ should be included within the current framework of hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The article uses the example of rape to explore the parallels (both conceptual and evidential) between gender‐motivated violence and other ‘archetypal’ forms of hate crime. It is asserted that where there is clear evidence of gender hostility during the commission of an offence, a defendant should be pursued in law additionally as a hate crime offender. In particular it is argued that by focusing on the hate‐motivation of many sexual violence offenders, the criminal justice system can begin to move away from its current focus on the ‘sexual’ motivations of offenders and begin to more effectively challenge the gendered prejudices that are frequently causal to such crimes.     

Looters or Heroes? Production of Illegality and Memories of ‘Looting’ in Mali

My paper proposes an ethnographical perspective of the clandestine trade in antiquities in Mali by showing on one side the social organization (techniques, hierarchies, trade chains) of farmers-diggers; on the other side, by analyzing the rhetorics of illegality driven by officially-mandated cultural heritage policies. In particular the paper stresses the function of visuality in the construction of ‘illegal’ subjects and iconographies of ‘plunder’ circulated through national and international press. It shows that such an iconic power of images does befog self-representations of farmers-diggers (risk, courage, loneliness) which constitute the ethical cosmos of digging activities. In such a perspective, the debate over the looting of archaeological objects has become a reiterative product of national rhetorics of legality and illegality opposed to narratives of self-representations of marginality and heroization produced by ‘illegal’ actors.     

侵权违法阻却事由论纲

违法阻却事由与抗辩事由、免责事由系不同的概念,我国侵权法应在承认违法性独立地位的基础上,赋予违法阻却事由以独立意义。应该在坚持“结果不法说”的违法性理论前提下,对侵害他人权益行为进行有限的违法性推定,将属于合法权利行使的部分从传统违法阻却事由中剥离出去。要深刻把握违法性与可责性在传统构成要件理论中的不同价值及内在逻辑顺序,以“结果不法说”为基点,将违法阻却事由适用于全部侵权行为,明确虽具违法性但不具可贵性加害行为的定性,并以此为契机,确立“侵权行为”在现代侵权法中的核心地位。     

The Origins of the ‘Nonmarket Economy’: Ideas,Pluralism & Power in EC Anti‐dumping Law about China

‘Market’ and ‘market economy’ exercise a powerful, even magnetic grip on our collective imagination. But what do we mean by ‘market economy’? Does it make sense to speak of a ‘nonmarket economy’, and if so, what does it mean? How are the ideas of ‘market economy’ and ‘nonmarket economy’ related? Focusing on EC anti‐dumping law, this article seeks to answer these questions. It argues that the legal concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ in EC anti‐dumping law has been socially constructed, by means of relations among a plurality of institutional and normative sites, as part of a changing configuration of legal ideas in specific historical circumstances, and in contexts of political, economic, social, and symbolic power. This argument is articulated in three parts. First, the concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ in EC anti‐dumping law, though drawing on earlier elements, had its main roots in the early Cold War. Second, starting in the 1960s, the GATT multilateral negotiating rounds began to define more specific international rules of the game, but a variety of more localised processes played essential roles as forces of change. Of special importance were, first, the tension between legislative rules and administrative discretion in the United States, and, second, the Europeanisation of foreign trade law in the course of European integration. Third, the EC law concept of ‘nonmarket economy’ was born in the late 1970s. The main reasons were changes in the international anti‐dumping law repertoire, specific ideas in Europe about comparative economic systems, and the perceived emergence of new economic threats, including exports from China.     

‘Consumer’ versus ‘Customer’: The Devil in the Detail

According to the European Commission, the objective of EU competition rules is enhancing ‘consumer welfare’. In EU competition law, however, ‘consumer’ means ‘customer’ and encompasses intermediate customers as well as final consumers. Under Article 102TFEU, harming intermediate ‘customers’ is generally presumed to harm ‘consumers’ and where intermediate customers are not competitors of the dominant undertaking, there is no requisite to assess the effects of conduct on users further downstream. Using advances in economics of vertical restraints and, in particular, non‐linear pricing, this article shows that there are instances where the effect on ‘customer welfare’ does not coincide with the effect on ‘consumer welfare’ and the presumption can potentially lead to decisional errors. Thus, if the law is to serve the interests of ‘consumers’, the Commission should reconsider this presumption and its interpretation of the ‘consumer’ in ‘consumer welfare’; otherwise, it remains questionable whose interests EU competition law serves.     

行政不法与刑事不法的不对称性研究

我国行政法规范与刑事法规范并行的二元违法立法模式,是确定行政不法与刑事不法范围、关系的法源所在.在我国立法模式下,行政不法与刑事不法的对象、范围均具有不对称性,均需区分交叉部分与独立部分.行政不法与刑事不法规制对象的交叉部分即规制对象相同并不意味规制范围相同,需要进一步通过规范保护目的区分行政不法与刑法不法范围的交叉部...     

‘Citizens’ and ‘Foreigners’ in EU Law. Migration Law and its Cosmopolitan Outlook

Migration has become a controversial subject across Europe and beyond. At the same time, the EU has built up an impressive set of rules for third‐country nationals over the past two decades, which—unlike the mobility of EU citizens—received comparatively little attention apart from immigration and asylum specialists. This contribution presents the constitutional framework for ‘migration law’ towards third‐country nationals and shows in how far they depart from the paradigm of intra‐European mobility. It will be argued that differences can be rationalised by divergent objectives and do, nonetheless, not present a move towards ‘fortress Europe’. EU migration law maintains the distinction between citizens and foreigners at the same time as it protects migrants, including refugees. By accommodating migrants' rights and self‐government, EU migration law can be construed as an endeavour to replace traditional notions of alienage with constitutional rules with a cosmopolitan outlook.     

The Proposed ‘Common European Sales Law’: Legal Framework and the Agreement of the Parties

The European Commission's Proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (‘CESL’) seeks to create a European scheme of contract law available for parties to choose to govern cross‐border contracts for the sale of goods, supply of ‘digital content,’ and for the supply of related services. This article explains the background to the Proposal, sketches out the purposes and scope of the CESL, and considers and criticises its legal framework (and in particular its relationship with private international law) and the key requirement of the parties’ agreement. In the author's view, the CESL scheme remains an unconvincing basis for the achievement of its economic purposes and, as regards consumer contracts, puts too much reliance on the agreement of the consumer as a justification for the loss of their existing protection under EU private international law rules.     

英国法上作为抗辩事由之原告违法的限制论

如何对作为侵权责任抗辩事由的原告违法进行限制始终是普通法上的一个重要问题。为此,英国司法上出现了违法类型论、依赖原则论、关联论、立法目的论、公共良心测试论等诸多认识。2009年英国法律改革委员会提出应当将侵权法上的原告违法抗辩问题的改革任务继续留给法院,但此后的法院判决却动摇了对司法的信心,学说认为仍然需要立法的指引。对作为抗辩事由的原告违法进行限制问题的实质是公共利益与私人利益之间的平衡,因此,应当从原被告之间的关系以及原告的违法行为与公共利益之间的关系两个维度进行考量。侵权法上的原告违法之抗辩与违法行为(合同)的效力、不法原因给付的返还等问题之间具有实质相似性,应予一体把握。     

The Legal Case File as Border Object: On Self‐reference and Other‐reference in Criminal Law

What do case files do? With help of an ethnographic study on the care, maintenance, and use of legal case files in a Dutch, inquisitorial context, we work through Latour's and Luhmann's conceptualizations of law. We understand these case files as enacting and performing both self‐reference and other‐reference. We coin the term border object to denote the way the legal case file becomes the nexus between two worlds it itself performatively produces: the world of ‘law itself’ on the one hand, and the ‘world out there’ on the other. As such, our discussion offers clues for a partial reconciliation of Latour's and Luhmann's conceptualizations of law: while Luhmann's insistence on other‐referential operations assist in showing how law forges an ‘epistemic relationship’ with the realities it seeks to judge, Latour's concentration on the materialities of epistemic practices assists in situating these other‐referential and self‐referential operations.     

The Promise and Perils of Crowdfunding: Between Corporate Finance and Consumer Contracts

‘Crowdfunding’ is a burgeoning phenomenon. Its still‐evolving status is reflected in diversity of contracting practices: for example, ‘equity’ crowdfunders invest in shares, whereas ‘reward’ crowdfunders get advance units of product. These practices occupy a hinterland between existing regimes of securities law and consumer contract law. Consumer protection law in the UK (but not the US) imposes mandatory terms that impede risk‐sharing in reward crowdfunding, whereas US (but not UK) securities law mandates expensive disclosures that hinder equity crowdfunding. This article suggests that while crowdfunding poses real risks for funders, the classical regulatory techniques of securities and consumer law provide an ineffective response. Yet, a review of rapidly‐developing market mechanisms suggests they may provide meaningful protection for funders. An initially permissive regulatory approach, open to learning from market developments yet with a credible threat of intervention should markets fail to protect consumers, is justified.     

论犯罪故意在三阶层体系中的地位

在引入三阶层体系的背景之下,学界对我国《刑法》第14条中犯罪故意的体系性地位产生了诸多争议。在犯罪论体系的发展过程中,随着不法的主观化和罪责的客观化、规范化,心理性故意确立了作为主观构成要件的地位,而罪责故意与违法性认识(不法意识)则留在罪责层面,成为罪责的核心要素。无论是以不法论的基础还是从我国实定法的角度来看,心理性故意均应归属于构成要件而非罪责;在承认故意的双重地位的前提下,对容许性构成要件错误采取"法律效果转用的罪责理论"是迄今为止最为妥当的见解;关于故意与违法性认识(不法意识)的关系,我国《刑法》采取的是罪责理论而非故意理论。在三阶层体系之下,我国《刑法》第14条的犯罪故意应当区分心理性故意、罪责故意与违法性认识(不法意识),其中,心理性故意应当归属于构成要件,而罪责故意与违法性认识(不法意识)则归属于罪责。     

非法行医案件中行政执法与刑事司法的衔接——兼评最高人民法院有关司法解释

我国对非法行医分别在刑法和行政法中做出规定,二者概念及内涵的本质区别是行政违法与犯罪。非法行医案件中行政违法与犯罪的界限,应从主体和客观方面予以准确界分。为了非法行医案件中行政执法与刑事司法的有效衔接,应完善案件移送与接受机制,规范案件移送中的证据转化,厘清行政处罚与刑罚的关系。最高人民法院的有关司法解释量化了非法行医中违法与犯罪的界限,有利于司法实践,但仍有不足之处。     

Of ‘Landmark’ or ‘Leading’ Cases: Salomon's Challenge

This article seeks to question the two dominant conceptions of ‘landmark’ or ‘leading’ cases in English legal scholarship, using the House of Lords decision in Salomon v. Salomon Co Ltd. – the most famous case in corporate law – as a case study. It argues that neither the first dominant conception of ‘leading’ or ‘landmark’ cases, characterized by the analysis of the intrinsic merits of a case, nor the second, which looks at the historical contexts in which cases were decided, appears sufficient by itself to determine whether a case is landmark or canonical. Rather, we have to look at how the canonicity of a case is constructed by subsequent courts. The article seeks to advance the debate concerning the formation of landmark cases and aims to challenge certain prevailing views on the canonicity of corporate law's arguably most significant case.     

Regulating Law Firm Ethics Management: An Empirical Assessment of an Innovation in Regulation of the Legal Profession in New South Wales

The Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) was the first jurisdiction to fully deregulate law firm structure and allow alternative business structures in the legal profession. At the same time it also introduced an innovation in regulation of the legal profession, requiring that incorporated legal practices implement ‘appropriate management systems’ for ensuring the provision of legal services in compliance with professional ethical obligations. This paper presents a preliminary empirical evaluation of the impact of this attempt at ‘management‐based regulation’. We find that the NSW requirement that firms self‐assess their ethics management leads to a large and statistically significant drop in complaints. The (self‐assessed) level of implementation of ethics management infrastructure, however, does not make any difference. The relevance of these findings to debates about deprofessionalization, managerialism, and commercialism in the legal profession is discussed, and the NSW approach is distinguished from the more heavy‐handed English legal aid approach to regulating law firm quality management.     

‘Accountable Independence’ of the European Central Bank: Seeing the Logics of Transparency

The European Central Bank (ECB) emerged from the financial crisis not only as the institutional ‘winner’ but also as the most central—and powerful—supranational institution of our times. This article challenges the so‐called ‘accountable independence’ of the ECB across the range of tasks it carries out. Citizens ‘see’ the ECB today especially for its role in promoting austerity and its involvement as part of the troika and otherwise in the economic decision making of troubled Member States. Far from ECB monetary policy heralding a ‘new democratic model’, the ECB today suffers from a clear deficit in democracy. In between the grandiose concept of ECB ‘independence’ and the more performative ECB ‘accountability’ lies ‘transparency’. Across the range of ECB practices there is a need to take the related concepts of ‘transparency’ and of (democratic) ‘accountability’ more seriously, both in conceptual terms and in their relationship to one another.