论我国民事再审程序的现状及重构

民事再审程序是民事诉讼制度的一项重要制度,它具有补救当事人权利失衡的作用。随着程序正义理念的不断深入人心,程序正义对各项法律制度提出了新的要求,民事再审程序也不例外。为适应程序正义的要求,本文从民事再审程序的价值取向出发,对我国的民事再审程序进行了分析与重构,以求对我国法治的完善产生一定影响。     

我国刑事再审制度的价值理念重建

由于我国现行审判监督程序对实体公正的刻意追求,而忽视了程序正义、司法权威等诸多刑事诉讼中理应包含的价值,刑事再审制度的价值理念重建成为必要,提起再审的目的应着重实现程序正义,淡化再审制度中国家职权干预的色彩,强化人权保护。     

我国民事再审程序重构若干探析

在倡导并尝试践行法治社会的今天,只有保障了程序正义,实体正义才有实现的可能,社会主义法治才能更加完备。民事再审作为一种补救性的程序措施,更加需要正义的呵护,否则当事人的实体权利必然会遭到最终损害。建立完善的民事再审程序,对构建和谐的社会主义法治社会具有重要的意义。本文将不揣浅陋,对我国的民事再审程序进行一些理论上的探讨,以期抛砖引玉,对我国法治的完善作点贡献。     

法治下的刑事程序正义之整合

本文从法治及其理念入手,阐述了法治及其理念、正义和程序正义及刑事程序正义,然后以这两方面为基础完成对刑事程序正义之内容范围的整合。     

浅议实体正义与程序正义

在中国,一贯就有重实体正义而轻程序正义的传统,认为这两者是内容与形式、目的与手段的关系。实际上,程序正义自身却具有独立的价值。无论程序正义还是实体正义,其终极指向都是社会实质正义,法的正义价值是实体正义和程序正义的统一,两者是对立统一的,决不能偏废一方。     

浅析实体正义和程序正义

正义是法律所追求的重要价值目标之一,对正义之分以及其相互关系也是法学界历来所探究的热点问题。程序定义与实体正义具有必然因果联系。也就是说,没有程序正义就没有实体正义,程序正义是维护并验证实体正义的必要条件。本文认为不管程序正义和实体正义何者为先,法律建立的目标是为了达致整个社会的正义,那么为了达到社会正义有时应牺牲个体正义。     

程序正义概念与标准的再认识

程序正义是一种法律理念 ,即任何法律决定必须经过正当的程序 ,而这种程序的正当性体现为特定的主体根据法律规定和法律授权所作出的与程序有关的行为。程序正义的标准最值得注意的是程序规范的严格遵守和主体评价两个方面。既不能以实体的正义作为参照去评判程序的正义 ,也不能以程序的正义作为基准去决定实体的正义 ,实质正义才是唯一的选择。     

对程序正义与实体正义之冲突关系的质疑

正义本身就是一个标表各种相互冲突的利益被合理平衡的概念,这种平衡可能动态地体现在某种程序中,也可能静态地体现在某一结果中,因此只存在程序是否合乎正义,结果是否合乎正义的问题,并不存在程序合乎“程序正义”,结果合乎“实体正义”的分别。人权保障和真实发现都是程序所必须平衡的利益要求,它们之间的冲突不应被理解为程序正义与实体正义的冲突。程序正义是结果正义的根据,它们之间也不存在冲突。     

刑事再审程序理性反思（上）

从有错必纠原射与一事不再理原则的对立入手，分析了这两者的理论基础即实质正义论与形式正义论的优劣，并试图为我国刑事再审程序建立新的理论基础——实质形式统一论，以真正实现刑事再审程序之人权保障的功能。     

浅析程序正义

程序正义理念蕴含着人类对自身命运的关怀和对正义理想的追求,但长期以来我国法学理论界将法律程序仅仅视为实施实体法的工具。本文主要论述了程序正义的价值,并提出了判断程序公正的标准。     

Differences in assessments of relative prestige and utility of criminal justice and criminology journals

Several articles have been written about the relative prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Almost uniformly, however, those rankings have focused on sociology and criminology journals and have generally reflected a sociological orientation. If criminal justice is indeed a separate discipline, such approaches are tantamount to asking psychologists to rate sociological journals within a list of psychology journals. Our approach is first to separate respondents by their degree of identification with criminal justice and their educational orientation. Second, we compile a list of responses to questions about prestige and utility to practitioners across the range of criminal justice and criminology journals. Analyses of these data indicate that there are differences in the way scholars rate journals, based on their identity with criminal justice and their educational orientation. These differences, however, are found in specific journals and in types of journals (i.e., police, corrections, criminal justice) rather than in aggregate perceptions of all criminal justice and criminology journals.     

冲突法中自由裁量权的自由与限制——《法律适用法》生效前后之对比

法官自由裁量权对于案件的公正审理、实现实质正义具有极其重要的作用。我国冲突法在保持传统冲突法形式正义价值取向的同时,又对其独尊形式正义的偏颇进行了合理的修正,这种情形在立法上表现为既赋予法官行使自由裁量权的自由,同时又对其进行合理的限制。本文以《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》（以下简称《法律适用法》）的生效为时间界限,从自由和限制两个方面分别对该法以及该法生效之前我国冲突法中关于法官自由裁量权的规定进行介绍、分析和评析,指出《法律适用法》赋予法官自由裁量权的自由更为广泛,对其限制更为合理,体现了我国冲突法在追求形式正义和实质正义之平衡的道路上又取得一定的进步。文章最后还针对《法律适用法》的缺陷提出了完善建议。     

公平正义价值观的司法解读

保障在全社会实现公平和正义,是我国司法活动和司法改革追求的价值目标。但对公平正义基本内涵的理解和把握影响着司法功能的实现和人们对司法正义的期待。本文结合司法实践的发展现状,对社会正义观在我国的确立及其内涵、司法之于社会的功能定位、司法正义的相对性以及我国通过司法实现正义的制度化途径进行了思考,提出了自己的观点。     

冲突法之悖论:价值取向与技术系统的张力

在各国冲突法中,普遍存在着两大悖论:从其体现的正义度高低来看,多边主义优于单边主义;而在多边主义中,“实质正义”又优位于“冲突正义”。然而,在实践中,多边主义远未将单边主义逐出冲突法领域;“实质正义”也未取代“冲突正义”成为冲突法的主导价值取向。这两大悖论形成的原因,均可从冲突法之价值取向和技术系统的张力中得到解释。显然,对这两大悖论的处理,关乎我国冲突法之基本立法政策如何确定的问题。就此,虽无整体上的最佳消解办法,但依法律由价值取向和技术系统构成之法理分析,仍可找到次优的安排。     

Sexual orientation as a justice issue: Issues of postmodern social philosophy and religion for civil rights

This essay theoretically explores three core concerns for social justice research and analysis in the transition from social and legal philosophical foundations based upon Enlightenment categorical universals to a postmodern context that recognizes concurrent globalization and the constructed nature of particular status identities. Utilizing sexual orientation as a case study, the concerns are, what constitutes a civil right in a postmodern context, how useful are categories versus behaviors in protecting civil rights, and how does religion affect the civil morality that justifies and legitimates justice criteria? The argument is made that a justice construct for sexual orientation must rely both on behavioral freedoms and ontological status for adequate protection of human dignity and equality. It also is argued that interreligious discourse is essential to reparticularize religiomoral assumptions that have justified inequality and to provide an adequate negotiated grounding to legitimate shared norms upon which postmodern justice philosophy can be built.     

Relational Justice in Organizations: The Group-Value Model and Support for Change

This paper examines the psychological dynamics of the Group-Value Model for a behavioral orientation which has seldom been considered in the social justice literature: acceptance and support for change. A field study was conducted, with 176 participants members of an organization which was undergoing a change process. Participants were asked (a) to think of a specific relevant conflict situation with their supervisor; (b) to evaluate supervisor's behavior in that situation, with respect to relational and distributive justice; (c) to state the justice aspects most valued in conflict situations with their supervisor. A test of the model was conducted through a mediation analysis. According to the Group-Value Model (GVM), respect experienced within the group and pride in the group were mediating variables between justice judgements and orientation toward acceptance and support for change in the organization. Interactional and procedural aspects (relational judgements) were the only ones to predict pride, respect, and behavioral orientation, and were also the ones most valued in general conflict situations with the supervisor. The model was also tested at three different levels of analysis: organization as a whole, department, and work group. This confirmed pride and respect within the group as mediating variables between relational justice judgements and orientation toward acceptance and support for change at the department and workgroup levels.     

税收原则的宪法学解读

宪政意义上税收的价值取向是捐税正义,能够体现捐税正义宪政精神的税法原则是税收公平原则和税收法定原则。税收公平原则是捐税正义的直接体现,税收法定原则是捐税正义的法律保障。在税收公平原则和税收法定原则中,税收公平原则高于税收法定原则。     

程序类型化理论：简易程序设置的理论根源

简易程序设置的理论根源多是从效率的角度来阐述的,对此,本文提出了不同的观点.主张从程序的功能--正义再分配的角度入手,探讨程序设置的理论根源.通过分析,认为程序的类型化理论是程序设置在制度层面上的理论支撑,进而提出简易程序设置的理论根源也在于程序类型化理论,最终落脚于实现正义.     

卡多佐司法哲学解读

卡多佐是英语世界有史以来最著名、最伟大的法官之一,也是美国现实主义法学的最杰出的代表人物之一。其司法哲学对司法及其过程——司法的价值取向、司法的方法、司法的至高境界等——进行了深刻、独到的说明和阐释。卡多佐的司法哲学既是其存在于其间的时代的要求的热烈回应,又具有相当程度的普适性,对当今中国的司法理论和司法实践有着重要的参考价值和启发意义。     

我国死刑案件审理程序之整体改造与完善

我国死刑案件审理程序包括死刑案件的一审程序、二审程序和死刑复核程序,三者是一个统一的有机整体。随着最高人民法院收回死刑核准权,对我国死刑案件审理程序进行整体改造和完善已经成为一条既具有科学合理性又具有现实基础的改革思路。根据这一思路,死刑案件审理程序的各个阶段应遵循一些共同的程序公正要求,同时基于各阶段的特点和职能,在具体的诉讼程序设计上又应具有个性特征。三个环节应当各有侧重、繁简得当,共同在确保死刑案件质量、控制死刑数量等方面发挥作用。