孔子“义利”观与现代法治和谐理念

孔子思想是第一次文化轴心时代人类思想的伟大创造,儒家社会理想的本原是“和谐”。孔子纳“仁”入“礼”,希望通过体现以民为本的社会正义观的“礼法”体系去整合社会,最终实现社会和谐的目标。在孔子的利、义观中,个人之“利”与个人之“义”并不相互冲突。孔子的“义利”观体现了法律的利益调控功能与正义价值的和谐统一,与和谐社会的法治理念有契合性。孔子思想中所体现的“利”与“义”的和谐统一观,对今天以社会和谐为目标的法治建设具有重要的启示作用。     

“通知-删除”规则的适用局限及出路——以两则新型网络服务提供者案例为切入点

“云服务器”、“小程序”等新型网络服务提供者的出现对版权法中“通知-删除”规则提出了挑战。就法律适用而言,《信息网络传播权保护条例》中的“通知-删除”规则对涉及网络服务提供者版权侵权案件提供了快速解决机制,在适用上具有优先性。从属性上分析,“小程序”属于《条例》所调整的自动接入、传输服务商范畴,而“云服务器”租赁服务不属于《条例》中的四类网络服务,应根据《侵权责任法》第三十六条有关网络服务提供者之规定予以界定。对这两类新型网络服务提供者均无法适用“通知-删除”规则,而应以《侵权责任法》第三十六条下的“通知-必要措施”规则予以调整。“通知-必要措施”规则之适用以注意义务的判定为核心内容。在必要措施的判定上,技术过滤措施是判定新型网络服务提供者是否履行注意义务的重要考量因素。     

Reason of State and Public Reason

“Reason of state” is a concept that is rarely used in contemporary legal and political philosophy, compared to everyday parlance; “public reason,” in contrast, is ubiquitous, especially in liberal philosophy, as a legitimacy‐conferring device. In this article it is argued that the unpopularity of the notion of “reason of state” is partly due to its notorious ambiguity. Three different usages of the notion can be identified: a “thin” usage (where “reason of state” is equivalent to the common good); an “ironical” usage (where it is used pejoratively to denounce it as a pretext for application of illegitimate or illegal means); and a “pre‐emptive” usage (where “reason of state” functions as a legitimate second‐order exclusionary reason used to override otherwise mandatory first‐order rules of action). It is argued that only the “thin” usage is helpful in a by‐and‐large liberal‐democratic context. The article then discusses the main dilemmas related to the concept of public reason, especially in its most influential, Rawlsian interpretation, and defends the concept against common critiques. Finally, the two concepts of “reason of state” and public reason are compared, and it is argued that a “thin” usage of “reason of state” is functionally equivalent to public reason, and that both resonate with the theory of “input democracy” (focusing, as it does, on the legitimacy of reasons—or motivations—for applying coercive rules to individuals). The article also identifies a problematic feature of “reason of state”: its emphasis on the state as a privileged interpreter of such reasons and/or as identifying the pool of actors within which the “constituency” of public reason is ascertained. There are good reasons to resist both of these consequences: the former because of its potentially authoritarian consequences, the latter because of reasons provided by cosmopolitan political conceptions.     

传统合法化资源与农民工的利益表达——基于农民工1733份领导留言的文本分析

农民工的利益表达一直是地方政府非常重视的议题。但是,其表达方式尤其是他们是如何把自己的利益赋予合法性仍缺乏中国化的研究。论文通过对1733份农民工领导留言的文本分析,深入观察到诉求者“利”的合法化方式和策略,以及内化的“情”“理”“法”的文化心理结构。研究发现,在“重义轻利”为主导的文化心理框架下,诉求者需要把“利”合法化。通过“情”“理”“法”来赋予“利”以道德涵义和逻辑,从而形成了“情”“理”“法”的交互关系。由此,论文根据“情”“理”“法”的三者关系把合法化结构分为三种类型:传统型的情理法模式、理想型的法理情模式和现实型的理情法模式。以“理”作为评判底层民众利益表达行为的标准和尺度存在模糊性的风险。现实型的理情法文化心理模式意味着诉求者的心理结构仍然处于从传统型向现代型转变过程之中。为此,政府在处理诉求者的利益表达时需要加强法治化的引导。     

论商法通则的立法定位及其逻辑展开

立法定位既是商法通则立法的基点和逻辑起点,亦是指导商法通则司法适用的线索和指南。从商法通则和《民法总则》的关系、自身属性、适用对象三方面考虑,商法通则应当是“补充法”“权利法”和“裁判法”。制定商法通则不是对民法典“民商合一”立法体制的否定,恰恰是对民法典的必要“补充”和有益“完善”;商法通则的内容设计应当以商事权利为主轴和核心;其规范逻辑结构与构成要素应当符合构成要件—法律后果之要求,以便于法适用和司法裁判。在三者关系上,“补充法”和“裁判法”的商法通则是从“外部”关系进行考虑的;“权利法”是从商法通则“内部”属性来认识的;“权利法”和“补充法”的商法通则是从“静态”视角看待的,“裁判法”是从“动态”适用视角考虑的。     

秦汉官吏犯罪的处罚研究——以“废”官为中心

“废”官作为对官吏“撤职永不叙用”的专用处罚,一直被学界所公认。然而,从现有公布的秦汉出土文献以及传世文献来看,秦统一之后,由于领土的急剧扩大以及爵位在刑罚体系中功能的增强,“废”作为秦特有的处罚方式,其“永不叙用”的处罚功能被分解出来。“免官削爵”“废锢”等词汇开始承担“废”官的原有功能,“废”逐渐从律令法制术语中消失。     

法律与逻辑——对法律与逻辑关系的一种全面解读

本文主要对法律与逻辑关系进行了全面的探讨。对逻辑学和法学之间交叉性的一些问题进行了回顾和总结。首先,探讨了什么是“法律逻辑”,并重点介绍了我国学者较陌生的“规范逻辑”,将两者进行了比较;其次,对法理学和逻辑学都关心的“法律推理”问题进行了探讨,比较了“法律推理”和“司法推理”两者的异同,以及两大法系“法律推理”的特点和差异;最后,对饱受批判的“法律形式主义”进行了研究,指出应当辩证地看待“法律形式主义”的功与过。最后,作者结合我国的实际,认为:我们不能借口反对“法律形式主义”而忽视和否定逻辑在法律领域中的作用。     

古代法制的生成及其演进逻辑——以事制为中心

中国古代法制在其发展过程中,实际上形成了事制与刑制并驾齐驱的两面:一方面是通过"议事以制"——"制事典"——"令以存事制",编成令典;一方面是历经"不为刑辟"——"正法罪"——"律以正罪名",编成律典。它们是中国古代法的两个重要组成部分。人定规则的生成、成文法的出现、法典编制成功及"诸法合体"格局的突破,是中国古代法生成发展的三个关键节点。而从先秦的"制事典",到中古的"益事律"、"存事制","议事以制"的传统一脉相承,演绎了中国古代法源远流长的另一面。     

Introduction: Yugoslavia Dismantled and International Law

Yugoslavia existed as a country for several decades. Competing explanatory narratives as to why and how this state ceased to exist—labeled “the self-destruction of Yugoslavia” and “the Hegemon did it”—are contrasted, and connected to two related viewpoints on the question “What role did international law play in the process of dismantling Yugoslavia?”: “reformist optimism” and “traditionalist realism”. It is argued that the former position leads not only to the marginalization of state sovereignty, but also impunitism, genocidalism, humanrightism, and most alarmingly to the decriminalization of aggression. A brief review of essay contributions to this special issue on “Yugoslavia Dismantled and International Law” offers a further argument in favor of traditionalist realism as the preferred postion to take regarding the current state of international relations and international law. In this regard, the case of Yugoslavia is extremely instructive.     

“事功”与“格物”:高校学报的现状及定位

“学术失范”是指学术界的某些方面存在着缺乏规范,或有规不依或规范本身不合理,从而贻害学术事业的现象。一定程度上的学术失范引发了部分学术期刊的“失范”。对于高校学报而言,“学术性”“特色性”是其生命力、竞争力所在。     

试论土著民的环境权

土著民的环境权的提出与论证,对现代社会的权利网络形成具有重要意义。土著民在近代民族国家分析框架中处于“少数人”与“受歧视”的位置。环境正义论与生态智慧论的提出,使我们超越民族国家框架,对土著民环境权的正当性进行评论,然后超越“现代性”重构土著民环境权;对土著民之权利,实施国际法的救济模式;在国内法的制度安排中,以“本土参与”为社会参与机制的核心,确保土著民之环境的“自治权”。     

Boundary Work: Transcendence and Authoriality in Religious and Secular Law

The semiotic investigation of the divine or transcendent authoriality of religious law involves, in the context of discussions concerning the propriety or impropriety of the influence of religion in “secular” political and legal systems, preliminary boundary work to discern the meanings of “religion”, “secular”, and “belief.” Jeremy Waldron’s account of the propriety of religion in “secular” politics, mirroring but reversing John Rawls’ account of religion’s impropriety in that context, can be contrasted with neo-Calvinist (and other) conceptions of pluralism and the inevitability of fundamental “beliefs” in all political and legal thought. In the latter perspectives, religious believers are neither unique in their appeal to transcendent values, nor relegated to advancing theocracy (because pluralism is conceived as a religious value rather than religion’s opposite). A workable alternative to the conventional discourse of religious influence in politics and law is therefore evident.     

古典美学思想在英汉语言中的体现

一般认为,语言能描绘和创造美的人或美的事物是天经地义的事。却很少有人认为,“美”可以反过来影响和创造语言本身。本文根据“‘美’可以反过来影响和创造语言本身”这一命题,从英汉语言的语音、词汇和句法三个层面,去论证,在语言发展的长河中,“美”的的确确影响和创造了语言。     

国家治理现代化视阈下的法律、道德与组织规范关系

国家治理现代化须以系统完备、科学规范、运行有效的规范体系为基础。而法律、道德和"组织规范"共同构成现代社会的规范体系。因而,高度重视"组织规范"并正确处理好它与法律道德的关系,就显得十分重要。"组织规范"具有民间性、自主和自治性,有权制定并实施"组织规范",约束组织本身及其成员的相关行为。这些"组织规范"上承法律下接道德,但又不是照抄照搬,而是依"法无禁止即可为"原则独立存在。在中国继续深化改革和努力实现国家治理现代化的背景下,有必要重新认识三大基础规范的关系,从而有效发挥"组织规范"的作用,构建良好社会秩序。     

The Evolution of the CPC’s Conception of Association and Regulation of Social Organizations in China

Freedom of association and all institutions coming with it have not been accepted by the Chinese government. Instead, Chinese social organization administration is based upon the concept of association held by the Communist Party of China (CPC). The Chinese government had adopted a “total control” model of social organization administration in the era of totalitarianism before the “Opening-up and Reform”, leaving almost no room for social organizations to survive, because the CPC had regarded social organizations as “revolutionary” and “deconstructive”. The Chinese has adopted a graduated control system to administrate social organizations in the era of authoritarianism after the “Opening-up and Reform”, treating social organizations differently according to their threats to the ruling order and their utilities for economic development, because the CPC has viewed social organizations as a “challenging” but “auxiliary” power. The on-going “innovation of registration and administration of social organizations” is not a return to international standard regarding social organization administration in China, but only partial reform of the graduate control system still based upon the CPC’s conception of association as “challenging” but “auxiliary”. Social organizations capable of providing public goods in areas of economic development and social services are given more favorable treatment by the government while political and religious organizations are still tightly controlled by the government.     

Genealogy and Jurisprudence: Nietzsche, Nihilism, and the Social Scientification of Law

In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche presents a history of metaphysics that can also be read as a history of jurisprudence. Nietzsche shows how—via Platonism, Christendom, Kantianism, and utilitarianism—the “real” or “true” world of ideals gives way to an “apparent” phenomenal world that is itself ultimately brought into question. This article shows how 20th-century legal thought, broadly construed, also moves away from “ideals” of law toward an understanding of law as observable social phenomena. It suggests that the move to the “apparent” world in legal thought raises questions similar to those raised by Nietzsche's work: Does sociological law point to a nihilistic destruction of the legal tradition or to a joyous possibility of overcoming that tradition?     

司法公正与效率视野下的民事诉讼证明标准探讨

本文考察了英美法系与大陆法系国家的诉讼证明标准,指出了民事诉讼的证明标准与刑事诉讼证明标准的差异后,以司法公正和司法效率为支点,对传统上的“客观真实”的证明标准提出质疑,主张建立以“法律真实”为诉讼价值目标,以“盖然性占优势”的证明标准为主,而以在一些特殊案件实行“高度盖然性”证明标准为辅的民事诉讼证明标准。最后,文章还关注法学界和司法审判的最新动态,探讨了“盖然性占优势”与“高度盖然性”证明标准在审判实践中的具体运用及其应该注意的问题。     

Presumptions,Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law

The pure “best interests” approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The “fundamental questions” proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. “Presumptions” are not “rules,” but only starting points. No simple presumption “for” or “against” all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last—the largest category—warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in‐between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure “best interests,” to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure
• Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just “for” or “against”
• Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers

     

“同案不同判”的反向审视与规则建构——基于刑事责任本体论的思考

理论界与实务界对于“同案同判”的非理性坚守以及“同案不同判”的极端化批判,仅仅是刑事责任虚无化境遇下罪刑之间的“调节器”功能失灵所引致困惑中的冰山一角。绝对的“同案”本不存在,“同案不同判”现象的出现亦有其合理的一面。对此,应当放弃对刑事裁判量刑结果形式化的追求,采用逆向思维模式,将焦点转向对定性与定量“同”与“不同”之间充分的说理论证。同案不同判的规则建构,应当以罪刑法定为底线坚守,程序正义为形式保障,刑事责任功能发挥为实体支撑,其中,刑事责任的量的侧面是核心。