构建和谐社会促进法律秩序形成

和谐社会作为法律秩序建构的重要目标,对法律秩序的形成起着巨大的推动作用。法律秩序作为重要的法律价值和法治社会的重要标志,对于构建社会主义和谐社会起着巨大的稳定与保障作用。促进法律秩序形成是构建和谐社会的重要途径,增强构建和谐社会的能力,可以促进法律秩序的形成。     

为构建社会主义和谐社会提供强有力的法律保障

司法行政机关是依法维护公平正义、保障人民民主、塑造社会诚信、维护社会稳定的专门机关,在构建社会主义和谐社会中担负着重大责任。把握好工作方位,发挥好职能作用,为构建社会主义和谐社会提供强有力的法律保障和服务,是司法行政工作的一项光荣而艰巨的任务。一、司法行政工作的职能决定了它在构建社会主义和谐社会中的重要地位我们所要建设的社会主义和谐社会,是民主法治、公平正义、诚信友爱、充满活力、安定有序、人与自然和谐相处的社会。社会主义和谐社会的这些基本特征,既包括社会关系的和谐,也包括人与自然关系的和谐,体现了民主与…     

试论法律伦理对构建和谐社会的作用

构建社会主义和谐社会不仅要有法律制度的强制性保障,而且还要有法律伦理这一软环境的支撑。本文通过阐明法律论和和谐社会的含义,并分析法律伦理对构建社会主义和谐社会的重大意义,最后就如何发挥法律伦理对和谐社会的作用提出对策。     

浅淡构建社会主义和谐社会的法治保障

社会主义和谐社会必定是法治社会。社会主义和谐社会绝不会自发生成、自然实现。构建社会主义和谐社会必须借助于法律制度的推动与保障。社会主义法治在推动和保障作用的发挥上应具有三个基本的条件:一是法律制度自身的和谐,这是法治发挥推动和保障作用的基础;二是法律机制运行的和谐,这是构建和谐社会的前提和中介;三是积极探索预防和化解社会矛盾的法律机制,这是构建和谐社会的直接保障。     

努力肩负起推进律师业为构建社会主义和谐社会服务的工作重任

构建社会主义和谐社会,是我们党按照科学发展观的本质要求,从加强党的执政能力建设和全面建设小康社会全局出发而确定的一项重大战略任务。构建社会主义和谐社会,是集经济、政治、文化、社会等要素为一体的系统工程,既要通过发展不断增强社会和谐的物质基础,又要通过推进法制建设来不断提供社会和谐的制度保障。律师制度作为我国社会主义法律制度的重要组成部分,在构建和谐社会中有着独特的功能,发挥着重要的作用,完善律师制度是构建和谐社会的必然要求。通过学习讨论,我们对如何认识和发挥律师工作在构建社会主义和谐社会中的功能与作用,以…     

和谐法律才能构建和谐社会

提高构建社会主义和谐社会的能力是加强党的执政能力建设的重要内容。司法机关要不断创新工作,加强自身建设,进一步提高司法水平,为构建和谐社会发挥作用。本文就如何通过和谐法律来构建和谐社会展开论述。     

论和谐社会法律保障机制的构建

在构建社会主义和谐社会过程中,需要有法律保障机制,只有坚持依法治国、坚持依法行政、建立完善的社会法律保障体系,形成全方位的法律保障格局才能保证构建社会主义和谐社会目标的实现.     

发挥检察职能 促进构建和谐社会

“强化法律监督，维护公平正义”是检察工作的本质和规律，也是实现公平正义、构建和谐社会的必然要求。检察机关作为法律监督机关，是维护社会稳定的重要力量，是保障公平正义的重要防线，在构建社会主义和谐社会中肩负着重要任务。检察机关应进一步加强法律监督能力建设，积极发挥检察职能，有效惩治与预防犯罪，促进在全社会实现公平与正义，为构建社会主义和谐社会创造良好的法制环境。     

论法律监督与构建和谐社会的辩证关系

法律监督与构建和谐社会是我国新时期社会主义法治建设不可缺少的两个方面，二者同样是社会进步与发展的客观要求。法律的正确实施需要得到社会的认同和遵守，所以，构建和谐社会能够为实施法律监督创造必要的社会环境与条件；而现代社会的和谐与共振是建立在法治和正当秩序基础之上的。因此，加强法律监督同样能够为构建和谐社会提供法制支撑和保障。     

构建和谐社会视野中刑事政策的执行

刑事政策是国家抑制和预防犯罪的重要对策与策略,在构建和谐社会中发挥着重要作用。检察机关法律监督是正确贯彻执行刑事政策的有力保障。为更好地促进民主法治建设、维护公正正义、保持社会稳定,有必要进一步加强和完善检察机关的法律监督,确保刑事政策正确适用,从而深入推进构建社会主义和谐社会。     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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。     

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 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 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.