法律理性与法律教育

法律理性包括法律的理性、法律人的理性和法律教育理性三 个方面。法律理性的多重性决定了法律教育问题的复杂性。法律教育理性是法 律理性的重要内容,法律教学方法是培养学生法律理性的具体手段。课堂授课 法和案例教学法主要传授法律的理性知识,诊所法律教育主要培养法律人的理 性。我国应该建立双轨制的法律教育制度。     

法律发展与法律知识化

法律发展首先必须面对合法化与价值诉求问题，而这一切又无不与作为基础的法律主体的知识立场密切相关。如何谋求“法律知识化”、话语合法化以及法律主体的价值立场的有效运作，是法律文明、有效发展的必要途径，也是法律发展话语摒弃规则主义弊端制约而建构自我所不可回避的挑战。从西方国家的经验看，现代法治的确立与以理性化为核心的法律知识化过程密不可分，法律知识化由知识对法律的关系提升、扩展为一种法律观，再由一种法律观落实为一种价值观、方法论，并由此引导法律主体追求和建设一种新的法律文明。更为重要的是，“法律知识化”使法治成为近代法律发展的本质性，把知识化原则导入法律发展领域，从而实现了法律发展的革命性变革。     

法律理学:跨越法学与理学

中国法理学正处于重铸和衔接古今中西学术的历史关口,需要经历一个从法学向理学跨越的历史过程。将中国文化传统与近代西学系统综合起来看,在"古今中外"时空背景下,中国法理学既可成为基于经验认知的法律科学、基于理性认知的法律哲学,也可成为基于"德性之知"的法律理学。中国法理学欲在21世纪开其气象,显其规模,需要同时开通并维护法律科学、法律哲学和法律理学向前生发的认知渠道,由此立足古今普适之道造就政治和社会的经验、理性和道德基础,重构"内圣外王"。     

法律理性与法律的技术化

现代法律制度的每一个建构性要素及其运作过程的每一个环节,都表现出很强的技术性特征,这使得法律成为一种典型的社会技术。法律技术铸成了法律的确定性,使法律规范系统化;它划定了行为合法与不法的界限,使人们对自己的行为后果更有预期。可以说,技术化是法律理性在形式方面最重要的表现,而实践的特点决定了理性必然是形式理性与实质理性的统一,作为法律价值的载体和法律目的的支持系统,法律技术本身也是法治的基本条件之一。因此,法律的技术性特征及其意义应当受到重视,法律技术的功能也有待于我们加以深入地研究。     

论法律拟制、法律虚拟与制度修辞

法律拟制和法律虚拟是两个不同的法学概念,作为立法和法律运用的重要方式,两者本身预示着法律的修辞属性。法律拟制和法律虚拟分别勾连着立法和司法,从而可以在概念体系中进一步划分为立法拟制和司法拟制,立法虚拟和司法虚拟。这些概念都表明法律不仅是科学的、理性的、逻辑的规则体系,而且同时也是诠释的、诗性的、修辞的预设体系。因此,对法律不仅需要从科学、理性、逻辑的观点看,而且也要从诠释、诗性和修辞的观点看。只有把法律作为制度修辞,法律的逻辑推论才有展开的前提条件。     

认知法律知识化的三个维度

一个全新的社会,需要一门新的法律科学.法律知识化巳成为知识社会背景下中国法学转型的时代要求.尽管法律知识化的主张是多元的,但从其整体看,它承袭了后现代法学的衣钵,坚持以下核心观点:即将法律知识化概括为法律哲学化、法律科学化和法律平民化三个实体逻辑贯通的维度.其中,哲学化的使命是将法学从一个纯粹的科学问题还原为一个价值问题;科学化增强了法学理想图景的科学性与可行性;平民化则打破了法学的神秘性,扩大了公民的法律参与.经由此三个维度,法律知识化之科学含义方能得以丰满和立体化凸现.     

论法律渊源--以法学方法和法律方法为视角

从法律方法的角度看法律适用是一个关于“法律是什么”的认识理性 ,而法律适用中法律渊源内部冲突的解决是一个“如何实现法律”的技艺理性。从两者的关系上看 ,认识“法律是什么”是“如何实现法律”的起点 ,“法律是什么”也仰赖于“法律如何实现”     

法律正义的客观叙事

西方法律正义观念有着一以贯之的发展脉络。法律正义被理解为一种客观实在,体现为现实关系的"恰当状态",即人与法、人与人、人与群体关系的均衡。古典正义理论为此"恰当状态"建立了理性且客观的价值分析框架,即守法与均等的平衡、分配与矫正的平衡、交往理性与友爱的平衡。现代的法律正义理论学说在回应现代社会政治经济文化的新问题,回应同时代法律的实证分析和功利分析,以及在思考和论述实质正义、个案正义、权利与权力以及权利之间的关系等法律问题时,遵循了与古典正义理论同一的逻辑结构和价值理念。法律正义客观的内在结构为正义的实践和法的价值分析提供了明确且有力的思维方案。     

客观事实与法律事实的法学思辨

在诉讼实践中,难免要涉及对案件事实的判断,如何科学理性的对案件事实作出判断,还事件以本来面目,避免冤假错案的发生,这就需要正确理解客观事实和法律事实的区别。本文从司法实践可行性的角度分析了两者的联系与区别,并探讨了两者的关系     

论环境法律文化的同质性

环境法经过近40年的发展,在全球范围内成为一个重要的法律部门,并在社会中形成了具有自身特点的环境法律文化。环境法律文化的特点之一在于其独特的文化同质性。环境法律文化的同质性为全球环境法趋同化提供了生长的土壤。从环境法律文化的结构性分析来看,环境法律文化的同质性表现在不同国家环境法律规范的趋同与环境法律内在价值追求的相似方面。究其根源,源于科学理性的唯一性与普世性对环境法律文化的根本性影响。     

法理和情理

情感并非只能是任性的和不公正的,并非不能作为法律价值的终极来源.从中国儒家的传统哲学思想出发,一种"中和"的情感是可能通过修身渠道获得的,它可以称为情理.以修身作为治国根本,实质上是奠定社会形而上的价值基础的根本.情理可从修身中被发现,并进入日常生活的正义认知中.在法律推理中,情理可以弥补现代法律的价值亏空.     

Legal Theory for Legal Empiricists

There is a widespread view that one does either theory or empirical work, and that theory and empiricism represent distant concerns, opposing worldviews, and perhaps distinct mentalities or personalities. This prevalent view has deep roots and is also the result of pragmatic and understandable tendencies toward division of intellectual labor. Against this view, this essay suggests that the relations between theory and empirical study ought to be understood as more intimate and that making legal theory an explicit focus can improve empirical scholarship. We pursue this claim by articulating a basis for legal theory and by showing how that basis illuminates both the application and design of empirical research on law. Legal theory, we argue, follows jurisprudence in interrogating the law as a set of coercive normative institutions. The upshot of this approach is a recognition that an interdisciplinary analysis of law must rely on both a theory (explicit or implicit) of the way law's power and its normativity align and an account of the way in which this discursive cohabitation manifests itself institutionally. We thus argue that legal theory is necessary in order to draw fruitfully on empirical research and further claim that legal theory provides guidance both for setting up an empirical research agenda on law and for designing research into specific topics.     

Legal Positivism and Legal Disagreements

This paper deals with the possibility of faultless disagreement in law. It does this by looking to other spheres in which faultless disagreement appears to be possible, mainly in matters of taste and ethics. Three possible accounts are explored: the realist account, the relativist account, and the expressivist account. The paper tries to show that in the case of legal disagreements, there is a place for an approach that can take into account our intuitions in the sense that legal disagreements are genuine and at times faultless.     

Legal Principles and Legal Theory

Current legal theory is concerned with the presence of principles in law partly because they are at the core of Dworkin's criticisms of Hart's rule of recognition. Hart's theory is threatened by the possibility that the identification of some principles follows an extremely relaxed rule of recognition, or even no rule at all. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive test to ascertain what is the case in actual practice. On the other hand, the evaluative arguments which support Dworkin's proposal of principled adjudication are forceful but not conclusive. Moreover, since ultimate controversy over values is plausible, judicial discretion may sometimes be inevitable.     

Legal Transplants and Legal Downloads

Online legal education has the potential to address a global audience. But little attention has been paid so far to the question of how teaching methods developed in one jurisdiction interact with the substantive law of another legal system. This paper challenges the assumption of the independence of substantive law and law teaching on the basis of a comparative evaluation of online law tutorials in Scotland and Germany. It concludes that the transplanting legal education, as transplanting substantive law, can have unpredictable consequences.     

Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited

This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal reasoning that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them.     

Global Legal Interaction and Legal Cultures

Abstract . The legal discourse of a steadily growing European legal community and universal legal harmonization is misleading since it abstracts completely from the cultural dimension of law which consist of patterns of interpretation and behavioral routines with respect to law. The article makes use of abundant literature in administrative sciences, international management research and socio-psychological studies in Intercultural Communication in order to propose indicators for a comparison of legal cultures in the areas of European legal integration, international commercial transactions and international lawyering.