李步云与当代中国法哲学

李步云既是当代中国颇有成就的法理学家和宪法学家 ,又是“新时期”最早“自觉”到“法哲学”的法学家。他是从当代中国法理学和宪法学的“局限性”意识出发 ,而提出其法哲学主张的 ,其法哲学体系是围绕法的唯物论与认识论、法的辩证法与发展观而构筑并加以逻辑展开的 ,是对法理学问题的既深入又超出。为中国法理学研究提供基础、方向和标准 ,是李步云法哲学研究的根本目的所在     

欧盟通用产品安全法律制度初探

欧盟通用产品安全法律制度的框架是通过两项具有里程碑意义的指令 (GPSD 92 / 5 9和GPSD 2 0 0 1/ 95 )来建立和完善的。这两项指令均为采用产品安全立法新模式的横向指令 ,即直接规定对生产者和销售商的通用产品安全义务———只能将安全产品投放市场。本文通过对两项指令重要条款的比较分析 ,介绍了欧盟通用产品安全法制的发展及现状     

从涉外侵权行为的法律适用原则看"最密切联系理论"

最密切联系理论,是近年来西方国际私法理论与实践中最引人注目的进展。拟从涉外侵权法律 行为的法律选择规范着手,对最密切联系原则的若干理论问题进行探讨。     

家事事件程序的法理分析

台湾学者邱联恭教授提出了诉讼法理与非讼法理交错适用理论,家事事件程序交错适用诉讼法理和非讼法理是必要的和可能的,通常有三种情形.家事诉讼与非讼的集中交错以裁量权和对审权为中心.家事审判职权主义的特征使它与非讼程序有着某些相统点,因此家事诉讼事件可以一定程度的非讼化.     

建立简易刑事案件快速处理机制若干思考

我国应当借鉴国外的立法司法经验,建立简易刑事案件快速处理机制.该机制既具有公正、效率和效益的诉讼价值,也符合科学发展观的要求,有利于构建和谐社会.我国立法应当明确该机制的案件范围、机制启动、诉讼期限以及适用例外.     

论我国刑事简易程序的效益与公正机制

效益与公正是刑事简易程序的两大价值目标 ,两者有一致性 ,也有冲突性。协调效益与公正的关系 ,应从刑事简易程序的设置初衷和本质入手 ,寻找两者的最佳平衡点 --效益优先 ,兼顾公正。为完善我国刑事简易程序的效益、公正机制 ,应扩大刑事简易程序的适用范围 ,并设置多样化的简易程序 ,同时在立法中规定最低公正标准 ,使刑事简易程序最低公正价值得以实现。     

从五因素交互作用论看德育的作用

从总体上看影响个体心理形成与发展的因素是遗传、成熟、环境、教育和主体性,这五个因素在个体不同成长阶段扮演不同角色.从五因素交互作用论看德育的作用可以得出三个结论:(1)德育是将自然人变成有德性的社会人的重要途径与手段;(2)在个体稳定人格形成前妥善开展德育的效果最佳;(3)紧紧抓住主体性这个重要中介变量的德育效果最佳.     

To Wonderland Through the Looking-glass: Conceiving a Critical Legal Argument for Contractual Justice in the South African Law of Contract †

The aim of this paper is to identify the possible substructure (looking glass/es) of a critical legal argument for contractual justice (Wonderland) in the South African law of contract. South African contract law still fails, ten years after the constitutional transformation, to reflect the constitutional ideals of freedom, equality and human dignity in an acceptable manner. I argue that this disposition places a question mark over the legitimacy of contract law and marginalizes opportunities for the social change envisaged by the Constitution. The paper explores Duncan Kennedy’s Form and Substance-argument and indicates that the reluctance to accommodate these values may be attributable to the fact that the majority of role-players position themselves on the individualism/rules side of Kennedy’s continuum – a paradigm that perceives the law of contract as a body of positivistic rules to be applied neutrally and regardless of the social or socio-economic distortions its application may generate. In an attempt to move away from this traditional approach, the privileged paradigm is criticised. A typical CLS-approach is followed which employs sociology, psychological jurisprudence and game theory to criticise the law from outside the restrictive realms of law itself. Simultaneously, I attempt to illuminate the argument for a shift (step through the looking glass) to another paradigm. I conclude that our judiciary finds itself in a position similar to that of Plato’s prisoners in the cave and will not reach the point where they apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice. Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. †Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice.     

Resignifications and subversive transformations: Judith Butler’s queer theory and women who kill

This article provides an empirical study of a number of cases dealing with women who kill their abusive partners and the construction of the battered woman syndrome in order to identity the possibilities for transformation within the legal system. Drawing upon the work of Judith Butler, the article will argue that the unstable nature of social terms and the nature of social power provides the potential for resignifying and subversively transforming the gender identities constructed and perpetuated by the law. In addition to outlining the defences for murder and engaging in a close examination of the cases, the article will also provide a critical analysis of Judith Butler’s approach to subject formation. Dr Anna Carline LLB (Hons), LLM, PhD. Law Lecturer, Liverpool John Moores University.     

论股东大会决议瑕疵的法律救济

股东大会决议是股份有限公司的最高意思表示。由于种种原因 ,股东大会决议往往存在瑕疵 ,对其进行必要的法律救济 ,是维护公司利益 ,保护股东和第三人的合法权益的客观要求。我国《公司法》在这方面的规定还非常欠缺 ,有必要加以完善。