Following Historical Precedent: An Argument for the Continued Use of Military Professionals as Triers of Fact in Some Humanitarian Law Tribunals

The military commissions at Guantánamo Bay have properlybeen the subject of much legal scrutiny and criticism. Theiruse of military officers as triers of fact, however, meritsfurther consideration. Salim Hamdan may have benefited fromhaving military officers decide his case. His panel was composedof highly educated military professionals who have dedicatedtheir lives in service of the law. Despite their enmity towardsthe accused, these officers were actually in a better positionto be sympathetic and understanding to the Hamdan defence thana civilian jury. The unique aspects of military service andcombat experience will also make them excellent partners withprofessional jurists in future humanitarian law tribunals.     

Internal Market Rationality,Private Law and the Direction of the Union: Resuscitating the Market as the Object of the Political

This paper proposes a concept of ‘internal market rationality’ for the analysis of the political, legal and economic consequences of European integration. Internal market rationality refers to a specific pattern of political action in the field of internal market, which has emerged gradually due to the confluence of three main factors: first, the EU's functional institutional design; second, the processes of post‐national juridification; and third, a more contingent influence of ideas. In the interplay of those three factors, the interpretation of internal market has become overdetermined, restricting thereby the space of (democratic) politics in its regulation. This reification of internal market rationality has had a direct influence on the content of European law, as I demonstrate through the example of European private law. Internal market rationality has transformed the very concept of justice underpinning private law, the concept of the person or subject of law, the (re)distributive pattern of private law as well as the normative basis on which private law stands. I argue, finally, that a close examination of the legal, institutional and ideological arrangement behind internal market rationality provides clues for the democratisation of the EU.     

Wrong about Rights: Public Knowledge of Key Areas of Consumer,Housing and Employment Law in England and Wales

Over many decades, processes of juridification have brought about huge growth in legal rights, responsibilities and protections, yet citizens appear to poorly understand this ‘law thick’ world. This impacts citizens’ capacity to ‘name, blame and claim’ in the legal domain at a time of retreat from public funding of civil legal services. This article examines public knowledge of rights in key areas relating to consumer, housing and employment law. Drawing on data from the 2010–2012 English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Survey, the article uses responses to a series of hypothetical scenarios to explore public knowledge of rights and characteristics associated with knowledge. Our findings highlight a substantial deficit in individuals’ understanding of legal rights and responsibilities – even among those for whom particular rights and responsibilities have specific bearing. We also consider what these findings mean for public legal education and the efficiency, efficacy and legitimacy of the law.     

Juridification and the Construction of Social Citizenship

The article elaborates on the legal construction of citizenship within the welfare state. The concept of citizenship is constructed from the perspective of rights and is closely related to the legal development of various fields of law. Juridification processes in the welfare state directly concern the construction of social citizenship and indirectly affect both political and civil citizenship. Concentrating on juridification within the framework of the welfare state implies that the development of welfare law is the focal point of the article. To understand the implications of juridification processes in the welfare state, we concentrate on the relationship between social citizenship, on one hand, and political and civil citizenship, on the other, and consider the implications of the legal and institutional construction of social citizenship. Social rights may confine the scope of political and civil citizenship and at the same time enhance individual freedom and the extent of political action.     

The Heat is On: Thermal Sensing and Newsgathering – A Look at the Legal Implications of Modern Newsgathering

Thermal imaging technology, which was once used primarily by the military, has made its way into the civilian world. Journalists have begun making use of the technology, and, as that use becomes more prevalent, concerns about legal issues also arise. This article, relying on tort privacy cases, Fourth Amendment case law, and theoretical conceptualizations of privacy, provides an in-depth examination of the legal implications surrounding the use of thermal imaging devices for newsgathering.     

Juridification: Disrupting the Relationship between Law and Politics?

The article addresses some possible implications of juridification in the society. The concept of juridification is unclear, and the empirical knowledge of the social implications of various processes of juridification is weak. We argue that clear‐cut conclusions about the implications of such processes cannot be drawn. To address questions of implications of juridification processes, we focus on the relationship between law and politics. An analytical framework for the analysis of juridification processes is introduced to manage the vast implications of these processes. The discussion indicates complexity and contradictory outcomes of juridification processes. We conclude that to understand the vast complexity of the different kinds of juridification processes, we need more empirical studies from a range of academic fields, including law, economics and political sciences, and that researchers in these fields need to take a step back to get a more satisfactory analytical point of departure for such studies.     

两大法系惩戒性军事法概要

莫里斯与古斯塔夫斯的《战争法典》对两大法系惩戒性军事法的形成起到了奠基作用。在两大法系主要国家,惩戒性军事法以军事司法权的运作为核心,主要围绕军事司法管辖权及军事司法程序构建军事司法制度。20世纪50年代以来,受《欧洲人权公约》及《联合国公民权利和政治权利公约》的影响,两大法系惩戒性军事法的发展又呈现出了一些新的特点。     

Reforming the United Kingdom Constitution: Law,Convention, Soft Law

The Governance of Britain Green Paper continues the programme of constitutional reform begun in 1997, and appears to reinforce the juridification of the UK's constitution. Nevertheless, several key reforms will be implemented not by legislation, but by creating new conventions. This article argues that such ‘declared’ conventions are best understood as a form of constitutional ‘soft law’, which attempt to influence constitutional behaviour rather than generating binding norms. Applying a regulatory analysis, it then argues that the case for a soft, rather than hard law approach to constitutional reform is weaker than its widespread use in the UK suggests. Finally, the article challenges the thesis that the political constitution is being replaced by a legal constitution, arguing that the government's attitude to constitutional reform still exhibits basic characteristics of political constitutionalism. Moreover, there is more to contemporary constitutional developments than a bipolar contest between political and legal constitutionalism.     

清除国家主义教育观的影响确立社会教育权的法律地位--写在《中华人民共和国民办教育促进法》实施之际

克服国家主义教育观的影响,通过宪法和法律确认社会教育权的法律地位;民办教育法首先应是民办教育振兴法,是民办学校及其教师、学生的权益保障法;法律应规范政府对民办学校的管理行为。     

军事司法权能否推定

现代法治要求以权力法定为原则,以权力推定为例外。由于军事法理研究相对薄弱,以及法律与实践的内在冲突,军事司法权受军事统率权控制的制度惯性延续至今,表现在我国军事司法权配置中存在许多权力推定现象。基于现代法治的内在要求,以及依法治国方略和依法治军方针的现实需要,特别是军事司法权属于国家司法权的理论定位,在军事司法权配置实践中,应当严格限制军事司法权的推定,逐步实现从权力推定向权力法定的过渡,军事领导机关不宜再行使军事司法立法权,军事司法机关也不宜再行使军事司法解释权。     

军事法与军事法学的概念研究

军事法与军事法学的概念是我们研究军事法学的起点,军事法是军事法学的研究对象,军事法学是军事法的系统化的知识体系,正确界定军事法与军事法学的概念对于构建军事法与军事法学自身的基本原理框架体系具有重大的理论价值。     

军事权初论

军事权是军事法学的核心范畴和军事法体系的逻辑起点。与西方国家军事权归属于行政权不同,中国军事权是一项单独的权力,其核心内容包括军事指挥权和军事行政权。对军事权的设定、保障及控制,是军事法的主要功能。     

Disposition of insanity acquittees in the United States Military

Recent amendments to the United States Code of Military Justice have essentially adopted the federal mental nonresponsibility rule or insanity defense. The prior standard, as outlined in the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, has been abandoned. Notably absent is a system to address the disposition of the military insanity acquittee. This raises concerns regarding recidivism and the military's role in mitigating potential dangerousness. Relevant civilian and military law is reviewed, two cases described, and possible remedies proposed.     

Militarized Justice in New Democracies: Explaining the Process of Military Court Reform in Latin America

While a large body of literature emphasizes the importance of judicial reform in new democracies, few scholars have examined the reform of military justice systems in these settings—despite the potential for these courts to compete directly with civilian courts and subvert the rule of law. This article focuses on Latin America to empirically examine how the process of reforming military courts has played out in each democracy following authoritarian rule. We outline two distinct pathways: (1) unilateral efforts on the part of civilian reformers, and (2) strategic bargains between civilian reformers and the military. Within the unilateral category, we further distinguish efforts driven by civilian courts, those pursued by politicians, and those undertaken in the context of larger political transformations. Ultimately, we find that, absent a dramatic defeat of an authoritarian regime and its armed forces, reform efforts that do not engage and bargain with the military directly often fail to achieve long‐term compliance and improvements in human rights practices. The success of such reform efforts, therefore, may come at a cost in other areas of democracy and civil‐military relations. We conclude the article by summarizing our findings and reflecting on the lessons they provide for ongoing military justice reform efforts around the globe.     

围绕“人格”问题的法理论辩

"人格"问题在法学与法律上都是个众说纷纭的概念,由此也引起学界对其意义、范围以及与其它概念相区别的争论。诸如"人格的概念在法律上是否必需?","人格概念是否仅存在于私法制度之中?","人格"的概念是否与"法律主体"、"权利能力"的内涵相同?……等等,都常常引起人们的关注。作为法学、法律上的一个基础概念,人格有其存在的特殊意义,它既在私法上成为法律主体建构的基石,也在公法上为人的平等提供了依据。同时,人格既不等同于法律主体,也不类似于权利能力,而是法学、法律上具有独特内涵的专门范畴。     

我国军事审判队伍建设研究述评

军事审判队伍作为军队法制建设的重要内容,一直受到军事法学界的普遍关注,军事审判队伍建设是军队干部队伍建设的重要方面,对军事审判队伍建设的研究不仅仅停留于军事理论研究的层面,也是军事司法实务部门关心的问题。     

私法中的“人格”范畴含义辨析

在私法理论和制度中，“人格”范畴具有“主体资格”、“主体”、“主体特质”、“主体性要素”四种含义。其中，“主体资格”指特定的实体可以成为私法法律关系之主体的法定条件；“主体”指特定的实体获得主体资格后的法律状态；“主体特质”指特定的实体可以据之享有主体资格的其客观上所具备的属性；“主体性要素”则是人格权的客体，指自然入主体得以构成的且应得到尊重和保护的客观要素。这四种含义之间的区别主要体现为：“主体资格”是“主体”得以形成的法定条件，“主体资格”范畴也就是用来描述“（某种）实体”与“私法主体”之间的“转化关系”的概念；而“主体特质”和“主体性要素”都是指“主体”（或拥有主体资格的“实体”）在客观上所具有的属性，这两个范畴都属于描述某种“事物”的概念。     

宪政视野里的主体行为范式解读——关于合法与违法概念的辩证及其在宪政话语里的特殊蕴涵

合法性所强调的是行为主体的行为有法律的根据,违法所表达的是主体的行为违背了法律的规定。在宪政体制下,对主体行为的法律评价因主体的性质不同而有区别,对公权主体的行为范式的要求是行为合法,对私权主体的行为范式的要求是行为不违法。