Justice Between Sites of Justice

Michael Blake argues that states are the primary sites of justice for persons and that the function of international justice is to ensure that states interact with each other in ways that preserve the capacity of each to realize justice for their own members. This paper will argue that justice among states requires more of states than that they preserve and maintain each other's capacity as primary sites of justice. Justice among states will require some justification, as well, of the claims of states over resources and territory within their borders. Such a justification, I suggest, must presume a global institutional order, and this will introduce the problem of coercion in the international domain. International coercion will have implications for Blake's understanding of international economic justice since it is premised on the claim that the domestic context is coercive in a way that the international arena is not.     

交换的正义与分配的正义——纠纷解决途径的正当性基础解读

民事诉讼程序对于纷争利益的处理,主要是通过合意与决定这两种途径来进行的.合意实质上就是当事人出于自身利益的考虑,而与对方达成的利益交换契约,其正当性主要体现在利益交换方面,要符合交换正义的要求;而决定则是法院根据自己对于正义的理解,对争议问题作出的安排,其正当性则体现在利益的强制配置方面,应当遵循分配正义准则.在具体的案件处理中,两种正义经常交织在一起,共同构成裁判结果的正当性基础.     

Assessing Criminal Justice Practice Using Social Justice Theory

In this article, I introduce two of the leading theories of social justice put forth by John Rawls and David Miller. Then, I assess criminal justice practice, from law-making to corrections, in terms of ways in which it is consistent and inconsistent with these theories of social justice. Throughout the article, I also identify ways in which criminal justice practice is inconsistent with social justice. Finally, I make recommendations for reforming criminal justice to make it more consistent with social justice.     

Justice, Sanctioning, and the Justice Model

The justice model has emerged as an alternative to the discredited rehabilitative ideal as a basis for sanctioning policy. Retributivism or just deserts is offered as the primary justification for the criminal sanction in this model, although sometimes in combination with incapacitation and deterrence as companion rationales for sanctioning. Desert is, additionally, an integral component of a sense of justice that is presented as an attribute of the justice model. Desert, both as a rationale for sanctions and as the basis for justice, is drawn from the philosophical models of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls. However, these models have some rather disturbing implications that have not been addressed by proponents of the justice model. A critical examination of them and their implications for criminology is therefore in order.     

程序公正简论

程序公正并不仅仅是追求实体公正的工具和手段 ,它和实体公正都是司法活动所追求的目标 ,并且现代法治社会应以程序公正为本。程序公正的理念渊源于西方自然正义论 ,被认为具有独立和优先于实体公正的法律价值 ,它与我国法文化传统和现实存在着差异和冲突。     

On Justice

This paper returns to the question of how to think of justice through Teubner’s recent definition of what he calls juridical justice. Juridical justice is defined as distinct from political, moral, social and theological conceptions of justice. Teubner attempts to think of an imaginary space for a juridical justice ‘beyond the sites of natural and positive law’ and searches for a conception of justice as the ‘law’s self-subversive principle’. This article reviews Teubner’s conception of juridical justice and further proposes a distinction between juridical and non-juridical understandings of justice.     

论医疗正义

法治国也必然同时是正义国,而以人权保障作为宪法最高价值的法治国,其也必须同时是以医疗人权保障为核心的医疗正义王国。关于医疗正义的研究,其范围就如同正义概念系不确定的且多样的,本文在尝试理解医疗正义概念的基础上,枚举了中国医疗正义所面临的难题,并以此作为研究范围之界定。     

论医疗正义

法治国也必然同时是正义国，而以人权保障作为宪法最高价值的法治国，其也必须同时是以医疗人权保障为核心的医疗正义王国。关于医疗正义的研究，其范围就如同正义概念系不确定的且多样的，本文在尝试理解医疗正义概念的基础上，枚举了中国医疗正义所面临的难题，并以此作为研究范围之界定。     

论公司正义

我国应该借鉴合同正义原则的经验,在公司法中引进公司正义原则,使其成为与公司自治相并列的基本原则。该原则应以"法理阐释"的方式存在,无需在公司法总则中作出明文规定。公司正义既包括分配正义,也包括矫正正义;既包括实体正义,也包括程序正义。公司是多方参与者不同利益交汇的平台,引入"利益关系"的概念有利于厘清公司各参与方的利益冲突。公司法需要沿着分配正义与矫正正义、实体正义与程序正义的不同路径,结合利益衡量方法,对不同主体之间的利益关系作出恰如其分的规范。公司正义的含义具有模糊性,但有利于其弹性适用。这需要法官借助法律解释方法来妥当地适用现有公司法条文,也需要法官借助利益衡量等方法来填补法律漏洞,创造性地适应社会对法律的需求。公司自治是公司法的基本原则,但没有制约的公司自治会导致不正义。法官需要借助公司正义原则对公司自治进行制衡,但是应该采取谨慎而节制的态度。     

Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights.     

程序公正的价值——兼议实体公正与程序公正冲突的解决

实现公正是法哲学的核心问题。在我国推进法治建设的今天,尤其是目前正处在转型时期,各种利益纠缠在一起,在这样一个价值观剧烈冲突、客观标准剧烈变动,对于实体是否公正不好判断的情况下,程序上的公正就尤为重要了。实体公正与程序公正发生冲突时,应有正确的价值选择以期实现司法公正,实现我国社会主义法治。     

Procedural Justice and the Assessment of Civil Justice in Japan

In analyzing the data from a structured interview survey with Japanese litigants of civil trials, we examined the relationships between their perceptions of outcomes and process of the trials, responses to the trials, and evaluation of the judicial system. The results showed that both favorability of trial outcomes and procedural fairness of trials increased satisfaction with the trial outcomes and evaluation of the judicial system. Satisfaction was largely determined by perceived favorability, while the evaluation of the judicial system was largely determined by perceived procedural fairness, suggesting a justice bond effect that justice fortifies people's societal commitment. Consistent with procedural justice theories, the perception of procedural fairness was increased by the sense of control and the appraisal of relational factors, though both were affected by favorability.     

Whose Justice? Rethinking Transitional Justice from the Bottom Up

This paper argues that transitional justice needs to adopt a participatory approach to achieve longer-term sustainability, shifting away from the top-down 'one-size-fits-all' approach to allow 'voices from below' to be heard and heeded. It critiques dominant interpretations of key transitional justice concepts, and links them to the difficulties of post-conflict transitional justice in a range of violently divided societies. Popular participation and local agency, it is argued, is necessary to achieve ends identified in much transitional justice discourse, and to embed mechanisms for the creation of sustainable peace. A Northern Ireland initiative (the Ardoyne Commemoration Project) will be explored in-depth, illustrating how a bottom-up 'truth-telling' process can make a significant contribution to transitional justice and casting doubt on the validity of the deference to legal dominance in current policy and practice. The paper recommends that knowledge available in development studies and participatory theory be applied more clearly in debates and approaches in transitional justice.     

Justice Beliefs in School: Distinguishing Ultimate and Immanent Justice

This paper combines two recent developments in just world research: the conception of belief in a just world (BJW) as a resource for coping and well-being in everyday life, and the distinction between two different facets of BJW, namely belief in immanent justice (BIJ) and belief in ultimate justice (BUJ). Moreover, these two aspects are adapted to the school context and educational psychology. Scales for measuring ultimate and immanent justice in schools were developed within a German pilot reform project with a sample of 1274 pupils. The two facets could be distinguished by means of factor analysis. The reliability of the two scales is satisfactory, and their validity is confirmed by their differential correlational patterns. Results show that not every form of BJW automatically functions as a coping resource. In fact, only BUJ is able to protect pupils' mental well-being, whereas immanent justice can actually jeopardize well-being. Similarly, BUJ is associated with the perception of solidarity and learning enjoyment in class, whereas BIJ is more closely associated with the experience of rivalry and competition in class. Finally, the socialization of the two justice beliefs is considered. The cross-sectional data provide some evidence to suggest that friendly and supportive parenting styles can promote BUJ, whereas strict parenting styles may further BIJ. More longitudinal research is needed to obtain further insights into these phenomena.     

论WTO协议体现的程序正义原则对我国司法的影响

从法律上看 ,加入WTO ,对我们最大的挑战是我国法律制度的完善问题。对入世后 ,WTO协议所体现的程序正义要求对我国司法形成怎样的影响 ,应如何予以完善进行一些有益的探讨。