完善宪法程序若干问题初探

我国目前亟需完善的宪法程序为 :各级人民代表选举程序 ;修改宪法程序 ;保护公民宪法权利的宪政立法程序 ;执政党执政程序 ;违宪审查程序 ;其他国家机关对本级国家权力机关负责的程序 ;国家权力机关监督本级其他国家机关的程序。     

完善我国宪法监督制度之构想

设立宪法法院负责宪法监督工作是一种最切合实际的完善我国宪法监督制度的方案。除在中央设立宪法法院外,可在地方设立巡回宪法法院。宪法法院应当具有相对独立性。为保证宪法法院有效行使其宪法监督职能,必须赋予其事前审查权、宪法解释权等职权。宪法监督程序须由相应的主体提起。     

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.     

受教育权的司法救济

受教育权是公民的宪法权利,具有自由权、社会权、发展权的多重性质。通过行政诉讼解决受教育权案件有其积极意义,但也存在诸多弊端和局限性。宪法诉讼是受教育权司法救济的根本途径。只有从宪法层次和高度解决一系列的理念和技术障碍,逐步实行宪法司法化,才能最终保障受教育权的实现。     

宪法监督司法化的制度构想

宪法监督的司法化,是宪法监督的最主要和有效的方式。我国应当建立宪法诉讼制度,改革可以分三阶段进行:第一阶段,由行政审判庭审理少数“准宪法诉讼”案;第二阶段,宪法监督委员会和人民法院共同实施监督;第三阶段,设立宪法法院承担全部宪法监督职能,最终确立我国的宪法监督制度。     

中国现代性法学话语的时空坐标

中国现代性法学话语的时间坐标,应当着眼于“后礼法”这样一个关节点。在“后礼法”时代,既要认真对待“礼法”时代之“礼”在“后礼法”时代的历史遗留物,更要积极应对“后礼法”时代本身对于中国法学提出的挑战。中国现代性法学话语的空间坐标,应当从“中国与西方”这种传统的法学空间图式,转换到“中国与世界”这一新的法学图式中来。在传统的“中国与西方”图式中,现代性的中国法学话语主要是由西方法学来定义的,在“中国与世界”图式中,现代性的中国法学话语主要是由世界法学来定义的。通过建构中国现代性法学话语的时空坐标,有助于中国法学树立起自我意识与自主观念,承担起为世界法学做出“中国贡献”的责任。     

祛魅与自足:政治理论对宪法解释的影响及其限度

宪法学究其根本是为了适用宪法而对宪法文本进行解释的宪法释义学。但是,由于宪法文本的不确定性,在宪法解释中纳入政治的考量是不可避免的。对于同样的宪法条款,在不同的政治理论引导下,会得出完全不同的解释结果。考察政治理论对宪法解释的影响是一种社会科学对法学的逻辑自足的祛魅,是有价值的。但是,随意选择作为宪法解释“背景规范”的政治理论,会导致解释的恣意,损害法的安定性价值。所以,必须根植于本国的制宪历史、规范环境和宪法文本去容纳政治理论论证这种“外部论证”,消解其对宪法解释确定性的损害。     

“宪法政治”理论的时代课题——关于中国现代法治主义理论的另一个视角

中国现时代处于一个“非常时期” ,即有别于日常政治的宪法政治时期。因此 ,政治国家的问题是我国宪法的理论基础 ,目前法学界倡言的法治主义属于一种市民社会的规则之治 ,但如何把法律人的法律上升为政治家的法律 ,或者说如何处理民法与政治法的关系 ,是当前我们国家宪法政治所要解决的一个重要问题 ,而对此 ,欧洲大陆国家的公法理论和英美传统的阿克曼的宪法政治学说 ,为我们提供了一个可资借鉴的新视角     

非概念性法学中的事实、价值与行为

作为大多数法学理论著述的一种范式 ,非概念性法学涵盖了十分丰富的内容 ,其目标 ,就是要陈述那些经得住反驳的、有知识旨趣的问题 ,以及法律及其后果的社会作用问题。所以 ,非概念性法学理论都是可证伪的。法学对话 (Legaldialogue)则为检测非概念性法学理论提供了至关重要的途径。因而所有的主张 (无论是明确的主张还是隐含的主张 )都是法学对话参与者试图表达其不同观点的手段 ,而他们所要表达的这些截然不同的观点 ,莫过于以下三大类 ,即 :事实、价值与行为     

公司合并与职工权益保护

公司合并时应注意保护职工的合法权益。被合并公司职工的原劳动合同应由合并后的公司承继 ,合并公司在合并完成后不能随意解雇被合并公司的职工 ,应遵守拟制解雇和整理解雇法理。我国现行立法在保护合并时的职工权益方面尚有许多缺陷 ,亟须在今后的立法和实践中加以修正。