过错及因果关系推定与证明责任倒置——从事实到价值的思考

过错及因果关系推定是法律在前提事实(某种情境下的损害)获得证明的条件下,绕过了法官对基础事实问题的认定,而对法律事实中的法律问题(过错及因果关系有无)给出的暂时性结论。证明责任本质上是要件事实真伪不明时当事人承担的败诉风险,是对法律事实中事实问题的解决。因此在大陆法系,法定推定必然导致证明责任倒置。英美法系情形不同。过错及因果关系推定具有相同的正当性基础,它们在现行法中的体现尚未得到全面认识。     

“不知法不免责”准则的历史考察

刑法中事实错误与法律错误分类的现代意义与罗马法无关。对“不知法不免责”准则的发展历史的考察表明,无论在大陆法的语境中,还是在普通法的语境中,现代的“不知法不免责”准则都建立在知法的推定的基础之上。知法的推定与近代以来国家权威的扩张与治理方式的理性化存在紧密联系。借助知法的推定,“不知法不免责”准则与责任主义在古典的刑法理论体系中得以自洽共存。在知法的推定动摇之后,为维护“不知法不免责”的传统立场,人们提出诸种新的理论根据,但这些根据无法使传统立场正当化。     

法律效力理论中的实效性原则

法律拥有效力部分地依赖于其所在的法律体系具有实效,即得到人们大体上的服从。这就是法律效力理论中的实效性原则。对于各种类型的法律效力理论来说,法律效力标准都需要来自法律本质、功能的道德原则的支持。表面上,作为纯粹事实的实效似乎与各种类型的法律效力理论都不协调,但实质上,法律效力依赖于实效是源于"法律的任务应该交给最具实力的人或机构来完成"这一道德原则。根据该原则,实效难题可以得到很好的解决。     

论合同效力类型体系的重构*--认真对待合同的法律约束力

现有合同效力类型体系不够科学,有必要重构。合同的效力类型应划分为三类五种。合同有效（广义）包括依法成立的合同的有效（狭义）和可撤销合同的有效。合同效力待定实为法律约束力待定。合同无效（广义）包括合同绝对无效（狭义）和相对无效。此“三类五种体系”始终以合同的“法律约束力”为基点,与现有的以“生效”为基点的合同效力类型体系均截然有别。该体系还表明,合同有效乃生效的必要前提。应当承认合同有效乃介于合同成立与合同生效之间的独立的效力层次。     

无罪推定的法律效果比较研究——一种历时分析

无罪推定最初表现为一种富有人权保障价值的证据法原则。但由于产生背景和发展进路的不同,无罪推定在英美法系和大陆法系的功能定位和法律效果上有一定差别:前者将其作为审判阶段的证明规则,后者则以无罪推定的证据法内涵为基础,充分挖掘其程序法意义,将其塑造为具有多重法律效果的人权原则。二战后,无罪推定的国际化虽然推动了无罪推定法律效果限制和生效范围的一些共同基准的形成,但对各法系无罪推定法律效果的影响并不均衡。     

法律适用：实然与应然的对接

法律适用并不是简单的包摄与被包摄关系。制定法的不合目的性、不周延性、模糊性及滞后性决定了法律规范不仅是不明确的,而且是有漏洞的。因此,在法律适用过程中,法官往往需要经过设证、归纳及类推等环节才能最后确定可以适用于待决案件的裁判规则。不仅如此,从法律适用的过程t观察,法律适用实际上是应然的法律规范与实然的案件事实不断接近,以致最后对接起来的创造性司法活动。     

论现代审前羁押制度遵循的普遍原则

原则作为规则的基础或本源是一种综合性、稳定性原理和准则,其特点是不预先设定任何确定的、具体的事实状 态,没有规定具体的权利和义务,更没有确定的法律后果,可称为规则的规则,是法律推理的权威出发点。审前羁 押制度遵循的普遍原则是指设置羁押制度时指导并使羁押制度具体化的原理和准则,是审前羁押制度以现代法 治理念为基础所形成的准则,归纳起来就是:程序法定原则、必要性原则、例外原则、比例原则、司法裁判原则和法 律救济原则。     

表见证明理论批判

作为证据法学领域最含混也是最难回答的问题之一的表见证明其内涵与性质尚需准确界定。作为一种缓解证明困境的证明方式的特殊性在于其是一种简捷的、类似的、无需证据的证明。其法律效果既不导致证明责任转换,也不降低证明标准,而是作为法官临时证明评价导致当事人具体举证责任的转换。表见证明就是在特定事项上根据较高盖然性经验规则进行的事实推定,不可能作为解决证明难题的灵丹妙药。我国无需引进这一概念,但比较法上的这一论题启示我们应直面事实推定背后的经验规则的盖然性等级而加以分类研究。     

法律事实的意义辨析

民法学通常将法律事实作为引致法律关系得丧变更的具体事实。但该定位隐含着表达与所指的错位，并缺失立法视角的审视，其法律意义还容易被常识所覆盖。要修正这些不当，宜从立法视角出发，以规范为定位点，法律事实因此可一般化为与法律效果对应的构成要件，即在特定功能引导下经由专业逻辑安排而形成的格式化社会现实的规范工具，同时又能具体化为构成要件中的构造要素。它们的关系错综而有序，反映了民法的体系性。以规范面目出现的法律事实是法律理念与现实的对应与调适，在适用中还要与个案的具体事实再次对应与调适。法律事实由此充满互动的张力，同时也使民法学有了多元的知识资源。但无论如何，法律事实并非具体事实。     

论事实推定和法律推定

首先研究推定的各种涵义,提出推定的基础是经验法则。然后集中分析事实推定与法律推定的概念特征及其相互关系,指出事实推定的实质是推理或推论;法律推定源于事实推定又高于事实推定,是在事实推定的基础上渗入了法律价值和政策需要,从而将事实推定的单纯经验逻辑上升为法律逻辑;法律推定和事实推定具有泾渭分明的区别也有千丝万缕的联系,事实推定作为一个法律术语有其存在的合理性。     

Are Legal Concepts Embedded in Legal Norms?

In this paper, we discuss the problem of the relationship between legal concepts and legal norms. We argue that one of the widespread theories of legal concepts, which we call ??the embedding theory??, is false. The theory is based on the assumption that legal norms are central for any legal system and that each legal norm establishes an inferential link between a certain class of facts and a certain class of legal consequences. Alf Ross??s embedding theory was presented in his famous paper ??Tu?CTu??. According to Ross, the sole function of legal concepts is to simplify normative information. Hence, the use of legal concepts may be a matter of convenience, rather than necessity. We criticize this approach mainly by pointing to the existence of so-called second order substantive concepts, which are not reducible to any determined set of conditional sentences (inferential links). In short, second order substantive concepts play the role of general standards, and general standards are used to provide flexibility for a particular legal system. In addition, general standards are ??value loaded??, since they serve as a frame of reference for judges applying law to particular cases. To understand such general standards as a predefined set of conditionals means to overlook their ??open?? content, and thus their function. In our opinion, the acceptance of the embedding theory means to misinterpret the function of general standards. We also argue that Giovani Sartor??s idea of defective legal concepts doesn??t help to clarify or defend the embedding theory.     

Developing a common law of animal welfare: offences against animals and offences against persons compared

Most animal welfare/suffering cases heard by the courts focus only on the facts: did the defendant, as a matter of fact, do those things with which they are charged? Analysis of the 2010 Amersham horse cruelty case reveals that there is significant room for ambiguity and subjective interpretation within the statutes that underpin animal welfare law. To provide certainty and to allow the law to develop it is essential that cases such as Amersham are not only subject to a review of the facts, but also a full analysis of the legal principles contained within the relevant statutes.     

Comparative Law for Legal Translation: Through Multiple Perspectives to Multidimensional Knowledge

With this paper, I suggest a multiperspectivist approach for assessing conceptual legal knowledge with relevance for the translation of legal terms in translation between two or more different legal systems. The basic quest is to present a set of categories and analytical approaches for legal translators to generate (collect) and classify knowledge necessary for their professional conceptual needs. In this paper, I will focus on the translational, juridical, and cognitive basics of such an approach. In order to cope with the broad range of possible translational purposes in different translational situations and choose relevantly between alternative formulations, translators need methods and strategies in order to construct the necessary conceptual knowledge. This presupposes a broad knowledge structured in ways that enable the translator to recognize relevant characteristics of legal systems and relevant differences between different legal systems. Concerning translational theory, the basis is the functional theory of translation as adapted to legal translation, based upon the idea of translation as choice between alternatives and distinguishing between documentary translation, at one end of a scale, and instrumental translation, at the other. This basis and the distinction presuppose relevant knowledge from comparative law. Hence, existing approaches and fundamental tenets concerning comparative law inside and outside of translation are presented. In order for knowledge to be presented in a manageable way with relevance to translators, I work with the approach of concept frames as basic unit of knowledge gathering and categorization. This way of presenting knowledge is embedded more generally in a knowledge communication approach, focusing on knowledge asymmetry. Within this general framework, the multiperspectivist approach combines insights from cultural studies (especially the study of law-as-culture), law as a disciplinary social system, and communicative interaction generating meanings in legal communication, also across national borders.

     

公众意见在裁判结构中的地位

从裁判依据的类型分析,公众意见只能作为一种事实依据,参与个案裁判。在常规案件中,公众意见作为一种准用的辅助性依据,可以通过弱的裁量成为合理化判决结论的说明性事实。在遇有法律漏洞的疑难案件中,与社会性主张相一致的公众意见,如果耦合法律体系中的法律原则或基本权利规范,可以籍由强的裁量充当个案推理的运作性依据,成为非常情形中正当化个案规则创制的立法性事实。在日趋多元化和复杂化的转型中国,法律系统必须在稳定性和灵活性、普遍正义和个案正义之间寻求一种平衡;判断公众意见的个案裁判地位,同样需在辅助性依据或运作性依据、说明性事实或立法性事实之间寻求一种平衡。     

Legal Positivism and Deontic Detachment

I consider a puzzle that arises when the logical principle known as “deontic detachment” is applied to the law. It is not possible to accept the principle of deontic detachment in a legal setting while also accepting that the so‐called “social facts thesis” applies to all legal propositions. According to the social facts thesis, the existence and content of law is determined by the attitudes or practices of legal officials. Abandoning deontic detachment is not an appropriate solution to the problem—the puzzle can be recreated with other plausible closure principles. The problem can be solved by restricting the social facts thesis to legal rules, rather than applying it to all legal propositions. Properly construed the social facts thesis does not apply to facts about what legally ought to be the case.     

试论法律领域内规范层面和事实层面的逻辑—句法对应性

从逻辑学和语言学角度分析 ,法律规范和法律事实、法律关系之间存在着某种对应关系。法律在规范层面呈现出“前件 /后件”结构 ,在事实层面上呈现出“法律事实 /法律关系”结构 ,在规范前件和法律事实之间 ,在规范后件和法律关系之间 ,分别存在着对应性关系 ;同时 ,在前件词项和法律事实构成要件之间 ,在后件词项和法律关系构成要素之间 ,都分别存在着对应关系 ;而且 ,就连前件、后件之间的和法律事实、法律关系之间的横向的逻辑必然联系之间 ,也存在着对应关系。这种对应关系 ,取决于规范本身的设定性或规定性特质 ,规范具有设定性或规定性 ,法律才能同其它异质因素区别开来 ,才能够把现实生活中极可能是毫不相关的两个事实强制性地扭结在一起。     

Transitional Shortcuts to Justice and National Identity

National legal systems undergo profound changes when they are confronted with undemocratic power seizure. The same occurs when they experience a transition (back) to democracy. Thus far, these two types of transition have been studied in relative isolation. Nevertheless, it seems that both undemocratic usurpers and democratizing regimes affect the role of fundamental rule‐of‐law principles in similar ways. This article compares both types of transition and suggests that pragmatism and national identity are the driving forces behind similar legal mechanisms, affecting legal principles, in those two forms of transition. Drawing on Carl Schmitt's idea of the state of exception and Ruti Teitel's work on transitional justice, this article shows that both kinds of transition share the same fundamental legal structure.     

The impact of “empirical facts” on legal scholarship and legal research training

Lawyers have traditionally viewed law as a closed system, and doctrinal research has been the research methodology used most widely in the profession. This reflects traditional concepts of legal reasoning. There is a wealth of reliable and valid social science data available to lawyers and judges. Judges in fact often refer to general facts about the world, society, institutions and human behaviour (“empirical facts”). Legal education needs to prepare our students for this broader legal context. This paper examines how “empirical facts” are used in Australian and other common law courts. Specifically, the paper argues that there is a need for enhanced training in non-doctrinal research methodologies across the law school curriculum. This should encompass a broad introduction to social science methods, with more attention being paid to a cross-section of methodologies such as content analysis, comparative law and surveys that are best applied to law.     

对司法推定若干基础问题的研究

在对案件进行裁判的过程中,遇到实体法缺乏具体规范时,基于何种理由认定有关案件事实,成为法官首先要解决的问题。适用司法推定,能够帮助法官摆脱案件事实不清、难以裁判的尴尬。长期以来,学界对于司法推定的相关基础问题缺乏应有的关注。对司法推定的概念、内在属性、构成要件、适用规则、诉讼价值、法律效果、司法推定权的行使和非理性因素的影响等问题进行系统的研究,能够在很大程度上揭示司法推定的本来面目,并助力于该制度诉讼机能的正常发挥。