诸神之争、法制型支配与正当性——韦伯合法性理论的再认识

当韦伯以现代社会科学的视角对合法性与正当性的议题进行研究后,他对当下正当性等同于合法性的陈述几乎成了我们研究合法性与正当性的出发点,不论是反对还是赞同。但是,在韦伯的合法性理论中,作为正当性的合法性存在两种意涵,一种是与价值无涉的经验陈述;一种是与价值判断相关的倾向和论证。正是在对经验现象批驳的基础上,韦伯论证了法制型支配和领袖民主相配合下作为正当性的合法性之可能条件。当我们正本清源,对韦伯的合法性理论进行再认识,或许会产生新的启示。     

现代民主宪制理论的两种思想形态——以韦伯与施密特的差异为焦点

韦伯的政治著述是现代政治理论的典范,对当代世界政治和法律理论研究具有划定问题史的意义.施密特脱离韦伯政治理论的体系与前提,极端化地推演了韦伯的决断主义与克里斯玛型领袖民主等范畴,为纳粹极权体制的极端价值相对主义进行辩护,与韦伯政治著述的根本价值关切严重对立.哈贝马斯既反思了韦伯民主理论的规范性真空这一缺陷,又继承了韦伯对现代性与理性化铁笼困境的诊断,致力于批判与根除纳粹德国非理性思想传统的影响,并以商谈理论重构了自由、民主和法治的规范性基础,为填补韦伯的规范性真空作出了贡献.以哈贝马斯提出的思想史问题为切入点,阐释韦伯民主理论的总体问题意识与内在价值链条,分析施密特与韦伯理论的外在联系与根本差异,能清晰呈现关于现代民主的经典思想形态及其内在张力.     

依法行政的合法化逻辑及其现实情境

在过去三十年的行政法制变革中,"依法行政"逐步成为学界和实务界关于行政法治建设目标和手段的共识。在行政法治语境中,依法行政所蕴含行政合法化逻辑,本质上是通过要求行政活动符合法律,使行政获得形式"合法律性";进一步,由于法律具有民主正当性,符合法律的行政便在这个意义上得到了政治意义上的合法化。但是,由于"法"的多样化和行政的政治化,依法行政逻辑所需要的前提条件已很难得到满足,这导致其在当代行政的现实情境中面临合法化能力的匮乏。因此,需要通过拓展依法行政的合法化逻辑,引入"通过理性的合法化"模式和"通过参与的合法化"模式,以构建一种"复合的行政合法化框架",将依法行政、科学行政、民主行政相统一,从形式和实质维度拓展行政的合法化资源。     

行政正当性需求的回归——中国新行政法概念的提出、逻辑与制度框架

从形式上看,行政法所关注的是行政活动的"合法律性",但这种对形式合法性的关注,本质上却是为了解释和评价行政活动的民主正当性.传统行政法的逻辑是通过形式合法性而解释行政正当性,其核心技术是评估行政与法律的一致性.随着行政内部功能变异和外部环境变迁,传统模式的解释框架所需的前提条件,在当代行政现实中已很难满足,这导致通过形式合法性而向行政活动"传送"正当性的模式面临功能障碍.因此,当代行政提出了行政正当性回归的直接吁求.回应这一现实,应当在反思传统行政法合法化逻辑与制度框架基础上,引入直接面向行政正当化需求的资源,拓展"新行政法"的制度框架和模式.     

中国共产党执政合法性的法哲学思考

加强党执政的合法性研究,对于加强党的执政能力,巩固党的执政地位,意义重大。所谓合法性,其直接含义是一种合法律性,其第一要旨是社会公众对统治权力的一种认可、认同或赞同。中国共产党执政是历史和人民的选择,具有实质的合法性,但是,无庸讳言,由于社会转型期各种矛盾的凸现,党执政面临着合法性的种种挑战。因此,为了保持党执政的合法性,必须做到:维护宪法权威,保证党执政的合宪性与合法律性;坚持人民主权原则,保证党执政的实质合法性;以“三个代表”重要思想为指导,巩固党执政的价值合法性;完善程序性民主的制度性安排,保证党执政的形式合法性;加强对权力的监督和约束,有效地遏制腐败,消解党执政的合法性危机。     

价值认同与当代政治合法性的基础

当代政治合法性的获得应当是政治权力主体与政治权力客体共同作用的结果，任何将两者割裂开来的认识都是片面的。政治系统追求政治权力统治效能的有效性、制度规则的合法律性以及谋求意识形态的一致性，但它只是在追求当代政治合法性的形式基础，而政治权力主体与政治权力客体之间达成的价值认同才构成了当代政治合法性的实质基础。政治权力主体只有将这些价值共识通过实践性活动体现于自身追求的目标之中，实现政治合法性的形式基础与实质基础之间的融合，才能为当代政治合法性构筑坚实基础。     

英美传统行政法“合法性解释模式”的困境与出路——兼论对中国行政法的启示

就本质功能而言,行政法可以视为是一种对行政活动的合法性进行解释的系统。行政法面临的根本问题是非民选的行政机关及其人员所行使的行政权力,如何才能得到"合法化"解释。围绕这一问题,英美传统行政法"合法性解释模式"试图将立法机关的政治合法性"传送"到行政活动之中,从而赋予行政过程合法性。不过,由于行政自由裁量权的广泛存在以及现代行政过程不断向"政治过程"转化,传统模式的解释能力面临巨大挑战,而以政治多元主义为理论基础、以公众参与和协商为制度基础的"自我合法化模式"成为当代行政法进行合法性解释的新模式。     

行政决策正当性要素的个案解读——以北京市机动车“尾号限行”政策为个案的分析

当代行政决策过程涉及多元利益权衡,影响到公众利益甚至公共利益,本质上是一种政治过程。传统行政法分析框架对行政决策行为合法性的分析技术,主要限于形式合法性分析,这已远远不能解释和评价行政决策过程和结果的正当性。对行政决策的合法性分析,需要引入一种"实质合法性"分析框架,其核心是将形式合法化、理性合法化、民主合法化机制结合起来,以分析行政决策的正当性。合法性、民主性、理性构成行政决策正当化的核心要素。     

韦伯法律社会学的若干错误前提

<正> 近几十年来,马克斯·韦伯的法律社会学在美国的法律学者中间广受赞誉,他的许多观念即使在那些从未研读过其原著的人们中间也都被广泛地接受了。他在“卡里斯马的”、“传统的”、“形式合理性的”和“实质合现性的”法律类型之间所作的鲜明区分,他关于现代西方法律之形式合理性的、资本主义的和官僚制的品格的描述,以及他更概括地在不同的法律类型和不同的政治统治类型之间所指出的关联,反映了种种——讲得严重点儿——存在着争议的法律理论。尽管如此,由于这些理论是深嵌于被韦伯所支配的庞大的历史     

关于古代中国君主统治合法性的一点思考

合法性作为政治哲学中的基本概念,是政权维持的必要因素之一。西方学者利用合法性理论对西方民主政治的发展进行了大量的分析。封建时代的中国稳定维持了两千年,本文利用合法性理论对其进行分析,发现中国的封建政权既在一定程度上符合传统的合法性理论,也有自己的独特之处。     

Perceptions of self-legitimacy and audience legitimacy among prison officers in Ghana

Criminological research on legitimacy has focused almost exclusively on citizens’ normative assessment of legal authorities. However, this line of research neglects power-holders’ own assessment of their legitimacy or self-confidence in their moral validity of their claims to power. This paper examines the conditions on which prison officers as power-holders base their legitimacy claims. Data from semi-structured interviews and observation of prison officers in Ghana shows that prison officers in Ghana exude high power-holder legitimacy underpinned by favourable assessment of their “self-” and “perceived audience” legitimacy in the eyes of prisoners. While officers’ self-legitimacy was underpinned in their legal status (e.g., legality) and the uniforms (e.g., state insignia), perceived legitimacy was anchored in officers’ maintenance of authority via self-discipline, good and close officer–prisoner relationships, respect for prisoners as humans, and professional competence or making a difference in the lives of prisoners.     

Legalist Fictions and the Problem of Scientific Legitimation

The author analyzes fictions of legal positivist philosophy and their role in the scientific legitimation of modern law and political domination. The original function of legalist fictions was the establishment of legal science, which would be autonomous and independent of other social sciences and public morality. In the second half of the 20th century, legal positivist philosophy has nevertheless adopted the fiction of the just law as its scientific legitimation fiction and incorporated moral and political discourse into legal science, again.
Legal positivism and its critiques within the discourse of the sociology of law and critical legal science keep the image of a hierarchical and centralized legitimation of law. Paradoxically, current legal philosophy and theory searching for a universally valid legitimation scheme is full of many different legitimations and reveals their growing plurality and the impossibility of establishing one sovereign legitimation scheme in the current social, theoretical and political condition.     

Positive Law and Systemic Legitimacy: A Comment on Hart and Habermas*

Abstract
The author revisits H. L. A. Hart's theory of positive law and argues for a major qualification to the thesis of the separation of law and morality based on a concept of systemic legitimacy derived from the social theory of Jurgen Habermas. He argues that standards for assessing the degree of systemic legitimacy in modern legal systems can develop through reflective exercise of "critical legality," a concept coined to parallel Hart's "critical morality," and an expanded understanding of the "external" and "internal" perspectives on legal systems. Following Habermas, he argues that modern positive law must retain systemic legitimacy. After suggesting criteria for measuring systemic legitimacy, the author concludes that the concept provides a useful approach to contemporary problems of "lawless" regimes and "law's imperialism."     

论司法解释的合法性控制

最高人民法院颁布的司法解释1是我国法律体系的有机组成部分,其合法性如何实现是重要的法治乃至宪治命题。作为事后监督的规范性文件备案审查,有其固有的局限性。以系统论为研究范式,超脱备案审查视角,将司法解释的制定、实施、监督视为一个系统,是一种有效的分析工具。经由合法性控制的三个子系统,即制定过程中的预防违法、实施过程中的避免适用违法以及监督过程中的消除违法,可发现不同主体在各子系统中承载各自独有的功能,相互沟通、对话,使得司法解释在流动的系统内实现合法性。这一发现不仅对司法解释的合法性控制有指导意义,还对法律及其以下规范性文件的合法性控制具有借鉴意义。     

情理推断在刑事证明中的规范运作 以事实证成理论为分析框架

情理推断是以经验知识为前提的推论,其在司法证明中的作用是必要但危险的。我国现行印证证明模式中并没有包容情理推断的空间,但其却在实践中隐性运作,同时因缺少约束机制而易于导致权力滥用甚至恣意裁判。为化解合法性与正当性危机,有必要规范情理推断在司法证明中的运作。然而,传统印证证明理论的外部视角,无法描摹司法证明的全貌,可以引入一种内部观察视角作为补充。司法证明在结构上是包含价值判断的论证式经验推论,事实认定因而具有似真性。在似真性证明的制度语境中,情理推断作用于从证据命题推导出案件事实的证明过程之中,辅助裁判者认定并证成对事实的确信。在该事实证成的理论分析框架中,情理推断的规范运作需要以认知开放的竞争性论辩程序为场域,以包容性的证明方法体系为前提;为防止权力滥用,还应给裁判者施加事实证成义务。     

Government lawyers and the training of senior civil servants. Maintaining law at the heart of the French state

To assess the influence of law and jurists in the conduct of contemporary French state, this article examines the role of the Council of State at ENA (École Nationale d'Administration), the main school for top civil servants. Although the study reveals the decreasing part of law in the bureaucratic capital over the past fifty years, it also shows how government lawyers have resisted this downsizing process. The teaching of a subject called ‘legistics’ provides top officials with a different view of law. Dedicated to promoting the political utility of law, legistics complies with managerial values while it sticks to the Weberian model of bureaucracy. As a result of the introduction of legistics, new techniques of legal drafting have been spreading within French public administration. Legistics thus plays a role in the contemporary reshaping of public legal practices, as well as in the renewing of legal legitimacy in the reform of public affairs.     

The Social Life of Regulation in Taipei City Hall: The Role of Legality in the Administrative Bureaucracy

This article explores the role of legality in conceptions of state and society among bureaucrats in the Taipei, Taiwan city government. When administrators confront the global arena, the existence of law emblematizes modernity and the ability to participate in the international system. In interactions among administrators, law is laden with impossible ideals and fraught with assumptions of hypocrisy. In dealings with people outside the government, legality often signals the breakdown of other, more valuable social norms. Far from legitimating administrative action, legality itself is legitimated by reference to the same values as other social action: it is held up to an ideal of consensus and cultural coherence and judged by its ability to fulfill obligations and nurture relationships. Law does not hegemonically structure administrators’ conceptions of state and society. Rather, it defines one aspect of governance at the margins of legitimacy, dependent on justification through other ethical norms.     

诱惑侦查合法性的阶段化认定:日本经验与中国路径

日本对诱惑侦查的合法性认定采取主客观混合的阶段化判断标准,分为启动阶段的合法性审查和实施阶段的正当性审查,具有清晰的阶段化特征和鲜明的实践指引功能。相较而言,我国在诱惑侦查合法性认定的问题上,既存在由法律规定的模糊性所导致的概念范围不明、法律性质不清等问题,也存在过度重视判断标准中静态要素的设置,忽视对诱惑侦查的行为阶段进行区分的倾向。解决问题的出路是,在概念界定上应明确诱惑侦查作为事前侦查、任意侦查的法律性质,并以指导案例的形式对诱惑侦查的行为方式、合法性判断要素进行解释说明;在司法认定上应在肯定主客观混合标准的同时,对判断标准中的主观要素和客观要素进行动态审查,进而形成启动阶段合法性审查和实施阶段正当性审查的区分,以凸显判断标准的实践指引功能。     

费尔巴哈的刑法思想——费氏眼中的刑法与社会

费尔巴哈是集哲学和刑法学研究于一身的伟大学者,被誉为"近代刑法学之父",其研究成果被视为犯罪心理学建立和发展的基石。他坚持不懈地将刑法理论与国家统治的合法性联系在一起,在此基础上创立了以形式的权力根据以及形式理性为依据的法理论,试图以此来抵制等级社会中各派的影响,为市民社会建立框架条件。对于德国刑法立法和刑法学的发展而言,费氏均做出了巨大的贡献,其刑法思想对19世纪至20世纪的刑法学具有深远影响,对刑法理论和刑法科学而言具有方向标的意义。他提出的形式法理论尝试突破当时社会现实的束缚,关注社会各阶层的权益,对现今的中国社会依然具有积极的意义。     

Legitimacy for a Supranational European Political Order—Derivative,Regulatory or Deliberative?

This paper discusses some models purported to legitimise a European supranational legal order. In particular, the author focuses on an application of the so-called regulatory model to the complex structure of the European Community and the European Union. First of all, he tackles the very concept of legitimacy, contrasting it with both efficacy and efficiency. Secondly, he summarises the most prominent positions in the long-standing debate on the sources of legitimation for the European Community. Thirdly, in this perspective, he analyses several, sometimes contradictory, notions of the rule of law. His contention is that we can single out five fundamental notions of the rule of law and that some but not all of them are incompatible with or oppose democracy. Finally, the paper addresses the regulatory model as a possible application of the rule of the law to the European supranational order. The conclusion is that the regulatory model should be rejected if it is presented as an alternative to classical democratic thought, though it might be fruitful if reshaped differently and no longer assessed from a functionalist standpoint of deliberation.