论行政规定的性质——从行政规范体系角度的定位

《行政复议法》中行政规定的法律属性是个看似简短实则极为复杂的问题。其简单之处在于将行政规范性文件中不属于法律规范的部分起了统一的名称 ,但这样的立法作业并不能回避从规范性的角度看行政规定时常难以将其与法律规范的作用相区别的困惑。本文通过对形式和实质判断标准以及这对标准依存的国家与社会关系的分析 ,指出形式判断标准无法准确定位在内外区别型的国家和社会关系基础上的行政规定的性质 ,同时通过对行政规定所产生的现实功能进行整理 ,力图为相关的制度建设奠定基础。     

作为法律规范性来源的惯习性规范——基于麦考密克的法律制度理论

对法律规范性来源的回答构成不同法律理论学术传统之间的区别,也是法律领域中认识法律现象、展开深入讨论的基础。在延续法律实证主义对法律的权威与效力进行强调的进路之下,在对法律实证主义者尤其是哈特"社会规则理论"分析与讨论的基础上,麦考密克的法律制度规范性理论通过分析规则与习惯的关系,以及由此生发出的"惯习性规范"概念,填补了规则与习惯间的缝隙,为认识法律的规范性来源问题做出了贡献,也推动了法律理论的发展。     

法律的规范构造及其关联和体系化

法律规范是因解读和分析法律规范性所形成的法学基本概念,是对法律规范性的表达及其逻辑构造的集中反映和概括。就规范形态而言,法律之中有"命令或禁止"和"允许"两类规范,各具有不同的表达形态和规范意义。法律规范必需规范的适用条件、规范形态以及规范内容三部分构造才能发挥其规范效用。除了规范规定外,法律规制功能的实现还需法律规范之间的应用关联和效力关联。法律规范的体系化是以法律规范为基本单位,法律规范之间的应用关联和效力关联为基本关系所建立的体系,它不同于以法律内容的社会属性及其意义关联为基础所建立的部门法体系。     

规范法学的方法构成及适用范围

规范法学的地位是由其方法论即规范分析方法奠定的。规范分析方法由合法性分析、规范性分析和实效性分析构成。合法性分析用来评价被分析的对象是否符合实在法;规范性分析用来检视法律权利语句和法律义务语句的清晰性和逻辑性;实效性分析用来判断逻辑语义上的法律秩序在多大程度上转化为实践行动中的法律秩序。规范分析方法一方面可在纯粹的规范法学领域进一步完善,另一方面也可超越规范法学领域,为其他学科研究对象提供方法论。     

标准的规范性与规范效力——基于标准著作权保护问题的视角

标准属于作品,具有规范性和规范效力。但是标准的规范性与法律的规范性之间存在着本质的区别,标准的规范效力并非来自标准本身而是来自法律,因此标准作为一种规范,本质上属于技术规范,而不属于法律规范。标准本身不具有法规性质,不宜将标准归入我国《著作权法》第5条规定的不受著作权保护的法规类作品范畴,从而将标准排除在我国《著作权法》保护的作品之外。     

法律原则的规范性研究

规范性主要是对合法权威与守法主体之间相互关系的一种认识。对理解规范性问题来说,规范性强度是一个重要的概念。法律原则的规范性追问这样两个问题：原则何以成为法律？为何具有指引、约束司法裁判的规范效力？法律原则的规范性包括形式渊源、价值理据、规范特征三个方面的意涵。对法律原则规范性的追问,考问着国家司法权威的公信力。法律原则构成了人之为人的主体性根基。晚近学界对分类式法概念的批判不能替代也不应阻断对法律原则的定性,即对法律原则规范性的追问。     

规范性文件的法律效力问题研究

我国有关法律将规范性文件与行政法规、规章相区别 ,将前者不作为法律规范看待 ,但又未提出区分二者的明确标准。事实上 ,行政法规、规章与创制性规范性文件的内容、规范效果及制定程序界限模糊 ,规范性文件还往往是法院在行政诉讼中的审查基准。从德、日、美等国的有关制度可以看出 ,法律规范与非法律规范的界限是是否规定公民的权利义务 ,是否具有外部规范性。就此而言 ,我国的创制性规范性文件是法律规范     

法律实证主义与规范理论——规范性的三个难题

在现代法律理论中,规范性既意味着法律对行为的影响,也用以表达有别于事实的另一世界。有关法律规范性的争议可分解为三个相互关联的理论难题:制裁与义务是否具有同样的规范作用?是否只有一般性的法律规则才具有规范性?哲学实证主义与法律实证主义对规范性的理解是否相同?通过思考这些难题可以得出结论:规范问题不同于价值问题,法律实证主义能够在探讨规范问题时坚持价值无涉的立场;法律的规范性不能化约为唯一一种规范作用,对此有必要进行更加精致的研究。     

法律规范的意义、结构及表达——一种实证的分析理论

规范性是法律的基本意义或重要特征.法律规范作为关于法律规范性的概念,不仅承载着解说法律规范性来源的理论使命,也作为法律规范性实现的基本条件之规定担当着诠释实证主义法学或"强制"或"规范"的法律规范理论的重任.实证主义法学从"法律之内"解读法律规范性的努力,使法律规范不仅是与道德没有必然联系的逻辑的和观念的意义结构体,而且有自己特殊的表达或表现.对法律规范的概念意义、逻辑结构体及其效力表达进行动态或静态的考察和分析有助于我们系统和深入地认识法律规范问题,进而深化关于法律概念及实践的理论探讨.     

论功能视角下规范性文件备案审查标准体系的完善

规范性文件备案审查标准体系是规范性文件备案审查制度的核心部件和关键元素。然而,法律与法律、法律与实践、国家机关与国家机关之间关于规范性文件备案审查标准的规定并不统一,个别甚至存在矛盾与冲突,从而严重影响规范性文件备案审查功能的正常发挥。规范性文件备案审查具有维护法制统一、保证中央令行禁止、保障人民权益和提高规范性文件质量四大制度功能。从实现制度功能需求出发,合法性、合宪性、政治性和合理性应当成为规范性文件备案审查的四大审查标准。这四大标准既各具独自丰富的内容,又相辅相成、缺一不可,共同构成了一个统一、科学、完整、可操作的规范性文件备案审查标准体系。     

民法强行性规范研究

为推介中国人民大学法学院博士培养成果,搭建论文品评乃至学术评价之平台,《法学家》自本期起专辟"博文精萃"一栏。该栏目由两部分组成:其一是"论文要旨",由博文作者对其博文进行全面系统而重点突出的介绍,一般宜包括如下要素:博文的体系架构;博文每章节的主要内容;博文的主要特点;博文的主要创新和不足;博文所研究领域的课题展望。其二是"论文评议",可以是答辩委员会的论文审查意见,或者评审专家的点评,具体宜包括如下要素:对论文的总体评价;对论文的体系及各章节的评价;对论文创新的评价;指出论文的不足以及进一步完善的方向。敬请关注并提出宝贵建议。     

我国《国家审计准则》规范设置研究

国家审计准则是审计法律体系之纽结,在外部效果上直接关系到相对人的权利义务,并对司法活动具有规范效应。我国于2011年1月1日起开始实施的《国家审计准则》采取了类型化的规范设置方式,其中,指导性条款作为对良好审计实务的推介,由审计人员自由裁量是否遵循,实际上降低了《国家审计准则》规范的整体效力以及对审计人员的职业要求,不利于防范审计风险,应该予以摈弃。     

Eating Peas with One’s Fingers: A Semiotic Approach to Law and Social Norms

This paper proposes a semiotic theory of norms—what I term normative semiotics. The paper’s central contention is that social norms are a language. Moreover, it is a language that we instinctively learn to speak. Normative behaviour is a mode of communication, the intelligibility of which allows us to establish cooperative relationships with others. Normative behaviour communicates an actor’s potential as a cooperative partner. Compliance with a norm is an act of communication: compliance signals cooperativeness; noncompliance signals uncooperativeness. An evolutionary model is proposed to explain how this comes about: evolution has generated an instinctual proficiency in working with these signals much like a language—a proficiency that manifests in an emotional context. We see these social rules as possessing a certain ‘rightness’ in normative terms. This adaptive trait is what we call internalization. Internalization enhances the individual’s ability to speak this code. Because these signals communicate who is and who is not a reliable co-operator, sending and receiving cooperation signals is crucial to individual survival. Individuals who internalized the entire process and thus became more adept at speaking the language were at an advantage. Law seeks to shape the language of norms by maintaining the collective standards of society; as such, understanding how and why this normative language emerges is critical to understanding a core function of law.     

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。     

A Norms Approach to Jury "Nullification:" Interests, Values, and Scripts

Juries and other lay tribunals are often justified because they leaven the law with community norms. Unfortunately, we do not have a particularly good theory of when and how juries substitute their normative judgments for the law. A first step in developing such a theory is to examine the nature of norms and the way jurors bring normative judgments to their task. In this article I compare and contrast different understandings of norms that currently are in vogue in the social sciences and then use these approaches to develop a more systematic understanding of when juries do and when they do not substitute their normative judgment for that of the law.     

Some Remarks on the Notions of Legal Order and Legal System

Abstract
In this paper, the authors discuss some problems related to the existence and identity of legal norms and legal systems. Firstly, two criteria for identification of legal norms are analyzed: linguistic criteria and non-linguistic criteria. Secondly, the dynamics of legal systems and the distinction between legal system and legal order are examined (close to Raz's distinction between momentary legal system and legal system). Based on the logical relations of membership and inclusion, two ways of analysing the change of legal systems are suggested. Thirdly, a criterion for identification of legal orders (from Bulygin) is discussed and it is shown that this criterion does not explain adequately, on the one hand, the existence of some norms, i.e., customary norms; and, on the other, the existence of invalid norms; i.e., unconstitutional norms. The main conclusions of this paper are: (a) the concepts of legal system and legal order could not explain the existence of law in a given society; (b) the concepts of legal system and legal order could be considered models of rational normative systems.     

新闻自治的法治思考——从新闻规范的角度

新闻规范表征着新闻传播的自由状态。前法治社会里的新闻规范是政治规范、经济规范、文化规范、法律规范等构成的总和,它是新闻自治和新闻法治的规范事实。在法治社会里,新闻自治是法治的子系统,是一项具体法治。以法治精神构建新闻法律规范统摄下的新闻规范体系,新闻自治才能真正实现。     

On the Nature of Norms

This paper deals with the question of how norms are to be conceived of in order to understand their role as guidelines for human action within various normative orders, particularly in the context of law on the one hand and conventional morality on the other. After some brief remarks on the history of the term “norm,” the author outlines the most significant general features of actually existing social norms, including legal and conventional norms, from which he arrives at two basic requirements on an appropriate conception of such norms: the actuality and the normativity requirements. On this basis, he enters into a critical discussion of Kelsen's highly influential view of norms, arguing that this view is doomed to failure. In the last part of the paper, the author scrutinizes the more promising “practice theory of norms” by H.L.A. Hart, which, in his view, also suffers from some shortcomings, but may be modified in a way that leads to a conception of social norms providing us with a plausible explication of their actual existence and their normative force.     

Right,Crime, and Court: Toward a Unifying Political Conception of International Law

It is widely acknowledged that human rights law (hereafter, HRL) and international criminal law (hereafter, ICL) share core normative features. Yet, the literature has not yet reconstructed this underlying basis in a systematic way. In this contribution, I lay down the basis of such an account. I first identify a similar tension between a “moral” and a “political” approach to the normative foundations of those norms and to the legitimate role of international courts (hereafter, ICs) and tribunals adjudicating those norms. With a view to bring the debate forward, I then turn to the practices of HRL and international criminal law (hereafter, ICL) to examine which of those approaches best illuminates some salient aspects of the adjudication of ICs. Finally, I argue that the political approach best explains the practice. While each preserves a distinct role, HRL and ICL both establish the basic conditions for the primary subject of international law (HRL and ICL, for the purpose of this article), namely the state, to legitimately govern its own subjects constructed as free and equal moral agents.     

The Creation of Normative Facts

In Kelsen's formalist and reductionisttheory of law, the concepts of `authority' and`competence' may be explained exclusively in termsof those norms on which the validity of other legalnorms or of legal acts is dependent. Kelsen describesthe nature of these norms in different ways; at leastthree different conceptions can be distinguished. Arational reconstruction of the most plausible of theseconceptions will understand sentences expressing such`norms of competence' either to state truthconditions for normative sentences of a lower level orto state criteria for an act to be a legal act. Inboth functions, norms of competence regulate thecreation of normative facts.