日本行政法学理构造的变革——以行政过程论为观察视角

日本战后的行政法学大体经历了两个发展阶段,第一个阶段(1960—1980年)是在批判公私法二元论的基础上重构行政法解释学,第二个阶段(1990年至今)是在反思行政法总论功能定位的基础上探索与其它学科的交流与融合。而行政过程论在这两个阶段当中发挥了承前启后的重要作用。     

中国经济刑法法益:认知、反思与建构

当前基于秩序、利益、自由等表述的经济刑法法益学说在认知进路上存在问题,无法形成本体和功能自洽的法益观。应当承认集体法益的独立性,立足法益二元论对经济刑法法益进行本体重塑与功能展开。它勾连宪法,是保障在经济领域中实现个人自由的外部条件的统一体,也是经济秩序市场经济规范保护的客体。法益不是刑法独有的保护目标,仅根据法益标准难以有效区分刑事不法与行政不法。经济刑法的犯罪化应坚持保护适格的集体法益,同时更加注重合比例原则和明确性原则的补充与限制。经本体重塑的经济刑法法益兼具体系超越与体系内在功能,有助于在反思当下中国经济刑法立法与司法的基础上,重构经济刑法的立法理念与犯罪化标准,厘清经济犯罪的类型与解释原理。     

Towards a More Comprehensive Analysis of Warlord Politics: Constitutive Agency,Patron–Client Networks and Robust Action

This article serves as a critique of a recent American foreign policy formulation proposing to eradicate ‘warlordism’ and asserting that democratic institutions can be directly created out of the post-eradication anarchic chaos. Against this background, recent years have indeed seen a bourgeoning literature on ‘warlord politics’ in Southeast Asia. The majority commonly portray political actors as faithful followers of economic rationality and self-interest. Therefore, most are conceived as selfish predators who ruthlessly use violence for private gains at the expense of public interest. By suggesting that comparative studies on warlordism have been heavily influenced by the political economy perspective, the article develops a more comprehensive analysis of warlord politics. Along the lines of patron–client network analysis, insights from moral economy and agency-structure sociological dualism are considered. Contrasting case studies are used to illustrate how the alleged warlords of Southeast Asia do not fit entirely into the political economy perspective. Caught in a vast patron–client network of competing interests and diverse powers across state and society, one's agency is constantly constituted by discursive arrays of contending interests, juxtaposing rationalities and multiple intentions. In state building, this complication is regarded as paradoxically necessary for compelling the alleged warlord-actor to re-define and elevate multiple private interests into public interest.     

论民法上土地与建筑物的关系——以一元推定主义为中心的理论探索

对于民法上土地与建筑物的关系问题,学术界长期以来众说纷纭。但通过一种形而下的还原性考察可以发现,罗马法及近现代范式民法其实既未采取绝对的一元主义,也不是纯粹的二元主义,而是以一元推定主义为共性,英美法亦不例外。我国立法尚有必要进一步契合一元推定主义的法理,妥善安排土地权利与建筑物权利的得丧变更,以保障秩序、自由、平等和效益等多元价值目标的协调。     

The removal of institutional impediments to migration and its impact on employment,production and income distribution in China

The major objectives of this article are to identify the inter-regional and inter-sector wage differentials that are attributed to the institutional restriction on labor mobility (the hukou system), and then to simulate the impact that the removal of the restriction would have on the Chinese economy. Our simulation results reveal that the removal of the hukou system would be accompanied by a massive migration to cities. The degree by which the labor force would decrease with the removal of the hukou system is higher in rural industry than in agriculture, suggesting that the absence of job qualifications would prevent the vast majority of farmers from changing their occupations. Should off-farm employment opportunities in cities for rural migrants be rationed, the elimination of the hukou system would exacerbate rather than cure the problem of unemployment in urban labor markets, which would adversely affect distributional consequences at the national level.

论杜威教育哲学的意义

教育哲学是杜威思想中最为独特和新颖的维度。杜威教育哲学在西方教育哲学史上具有重要的地位。实践哲学的观念、进步和民主的信念、现实主义的考虑和实验主义的方法,使得杜威企图通过教育来实现其改造生活世界的哲学宗旨,并以此作为判断一种哲学的实际价值的重要标准。杜威教育哲学的核心是经验主义,其基本原则是实验主义和民主主义。杜威教育哲学弥合二元论的努力是哲学改造、社会改造和教育改造的综合。讨论杜威教育哲学的当代意义,既要肯定其建设性,又要看到其有限性。     

关于经济学方法论中实证规范二分法的批判——基于马克思主义理论视角

西方经济学方法论中广泛流行着实证分析和规范分析二分的做法,这种二分实际上是一种二元论。当前二分法已经发展到“实证分析和规范分析相结合”的阶段。但这种结合是机械的、形式上的,是以割裂为前提的。二分法的哲学实质是本体论和认识论的二元论。它一方面是经验主义的唯物主义,一方面是历史唯心主义。同时,二分法在实践应用中导致了两个困境和三个危险推论。不破除哲学二元论就不可能破除方法论的二分,也不可能从根本上破除实证和规范的对立,在经济研究中把二者真正结合起来。马克思主义作为辩证的、彻底的唯物主义,恰恰为弥合二元论造成的方法论的裂痕提供了解决方案。因此,经济学研究要以马克思辩证唯物主义的方法论为基础,摒弃实证规范二分法,建立科学的经济学。     

从裁量二元论到裁量一元论

裁量二元论长期以来是行政法领域中的支配性理论,它把裁量问题与法律问题作为各自独立的二元来理解;裁量一元论正好相反,它认为裁量问题与法律问题并非各自独立的二元,根本不存在不受法律拘束的自由裁量。裁量一元论自20世纪中期以来,随着大陆法系国家法院对行政裁量态度的转变而逐渐抬头;20世纪后期以来,更有取代裁量二元论之势。这一现象意味着大陆法系国家行政裁量观念发生了质变,其直接原因是“裁量滥用”法理的展开,更深层次的原因则是是法治国家理念的质变。