论经济法权利的合法性基础、基本属性和结构

经济法解决的是社会经济作为有机整体如何持续、稳定发展的问题，因此，以社会科学中流传已久的、但被法学所忽视的生物学传统——整体主义观念研究经济法问题不失为一条可欲的途径，以此考察经济法中的权力（权利），不论是作为政府的权力还是个体的权利，其起源都是社会的需要和人们的承认，目的都是为了主体功能的发挥，因而都是功能性权利，且从构成看都有二重性。     

违宪审查的民主正当性问题

违宪审查制度起源于普通法传统,由于它的实质在于非民主的法官对于民意机关所制定法律的审查。因此,它从一开始就受到民主观念的有力抵制。许多国家因而长期排斥这一制度。经过二个多世纪的较量,如今违宪审查制度已经成为民主制度的核心制度、甚至是标志性的制度。在民主发展过程及违宪审查制度普及过程中,人们对民主的核心观念进行了创新。人们以种种方式摒弃了将民主理解为"单一权力主体"的传统民主观,使民主与违宪审查制度相容。他们有的采用"合伙制"主体民主观,或者采用"实体价值"而非权力主体的民主观,或者采取程序民主、协商民主、规范民主、结构民主等等,这些民主观从不同的侧面论证了违宪审查制度的民主正当性。与此同时,种种为违宪审查制度正当性辩护的社会、法律理论也频频出现,它们都为违宪审查制度的普及作出了贡献。     

《反分裂国家法》的宪政基础

《反分裂国家法》是一部既反映民意,又体现宪政精神的良法。其整个内容均体现了现代宪政的原则和精神,具有充分的法理根据和宪政基础。     

Constitutional Judicial Review in the Russian Federation

The institution of constitutional judicial review has acquired a new legal foundation for its application: the Constitution of the Russian Federation (RF), adopted on 12 December 1993; the federal constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 21 June 1994; and other acts. However, the opportunities for full implementation of this new legislation on constitutional judicial review in the Russian Federation are constrained by problems from the past: first of all, by the problem of depoliticization, which has assumed exaggerated proportions as a result of the lack of practical success that marked the first stage of the Constitutional Court's operation in Russia. The resolution of this problem has become a condition for the viability of specialized constitutional judicial review in the RF. The difficulty of understanding and mastering this problem is further aggravated by the ambiguous nature of the institution of constitutional judicial review, not only in the Russian model but also in the classical model of its organization. For it is indisputable that constitutional judicial review is a component of the mechanism of judicial authority, regardless of where it is situated in the constitutional structure of power. However, constitutional judicial review cannot be wholly equated with traditional judicial functions since it is at the same time also a political activity undertaken through a jurisdictional form.     

公民基本权利司法保障的宪法学分析

对公民基本权利受到第三人侵害时 ,如何寻求司法保障的问题 ,目前宪法学界有不同看法。笔者认为 ,要从理论上解决这一问题 ,首先应当弄清公民基本权利的内涵以及与此相关的宪法关系的特点。当公民基本权利受到第三者侵害时 ,要求国家予以保障 ,是公民基本权利的固有内涵 ;国家权力通过积极行为对公民基本权利进行保障 ,是宪法关系的应有之义。因此 ,从理论上和实践中确认普通法院对第三人侵犯公民基本权利行为的司法审查的合法性 ,通过对侵犯公民基本权利的审查 ,对违宪行为予以撤消 ,是公民基本权利司法保障的可行途径和手段。     

Judicial Review,Irrationality, and the Legitimacy of Merits-Review

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. The author in a previous article in this study found that the courts, on occasions, had intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions arguably were not irrational. To this end, the purpose of this article is to assess the constitutionality of these seemingly low standards of irrationality. The author does so by reference either to the manner of review employed—the use of the proportionality principle, for example—or the context of the administrative decision under scrutiny, such as the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The author finds that the cases from the previous article where low standards of irrationality were arguably adopted were, in fact, legitimate according to these chosen methods of evaluation. However, this is an interim conclusion because, for reasons of word length, the author is unable to complete a full assessment here. It is therefore proposed that a subsequent article will continue to examine the constitutionality of these cases. Furthermore, the author will also try and establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are excluded from irrationality review. If the author is unsuccessful in this regard, the final conclusion of this study will inevitably be that low standards of judicial intervention exist without limit—a clear assault on the constitutional principle stated above.

论对法律的违宪审查

宪法的基本功能是通过控制、分配和保障国家权力的运行,以达到保障人权的基本目的。而控制国家权力的运行是完成宪法功能的基本方法和基本前提。在宪法所控制的国家权力之中,最主要的是立法权的行使,即作为立法权表现形式的法律。宪法对法律的控制,又可以分为事前控制和事后控制。作为事后控制的基本方法是对法律实施违宪审查。而在此领域,我国存在着认识上的误区和制度上的空白。     

Judicial Review Without Rights: Some Problems for the Democratic Legitimacy of Structural Judicial Review

This article addresses an issue overlooked in most of the literatureon judicial review: the legitimacy of judicial review of a constitution'sfederal and structural provisions. Debates about the legitimacyof judicial review—at least as conducted throughout theCommonwealth—are usually focussed on rights. These debatesappear to assume that the power of courts like the AustralianHigh Court and the Canadian Supreme Court to interpret and enforcefederal and structural provisions is unproblematic. This articletests that assumption and concludes that those who hold democracy-basedobjections to constitutional rights should seriously reconsider,and perhaps oppose, federal and structural judicial review aswell.     

论统一公法学建构的宪政基础——兼谈公法学总论研究的几个误区

始自新世纪初的统一公法学研究,已经成为当下中国公法学的热点话语之一.规范的、建设性的争论有力地推动了学术研究走向深入,勾画出了公法学总论的学科图景.但不容忽视的是其间也不乏偏颇误解之声,甚或偏离了统一公法学的研究路径,实有重申斧正之必要.为什么构建统一公法学,建构什么样的统一公法学以及如何建构,终极价值在于宪政.因此,明确宪政主义对于统一公法学理论建构的统领作用,具有重要的理论和实践意义.     

司法提请的宪法反思

本文试图从宪法的角度审视司法实践中就法规冲突提请上级法院与其他机构裁决所带来的问题.文章认为,法院的提请安排不但会导致人民法院审判权的外部化,而且无法满足法的一致性与安定性要求.送请裁决政策还实际地影响了当事人的上诉权.文章认为,虽然法院采取司法提请有其现实考虑,但是宪法也规定了职权分工原则和独立审判原则.从宪法出发,应当允许法官对规范的选择进行独立判断.审判过程结束之后,司法误判的纠正则可以通过法律解释或宪法监督制度进行修补.文章认为这种思路既符合司法的要求,也符合我国的人民代表大会制度的根本要求.     

Judicial Review, Administrative Review, and Constitutional Review in the Weimar Republic

Abstract.   Judicial review ( richterliches Prüfungsrecht ), administrative review ( Verwaltungsgerichtbarkeit ), and constitutional review ( Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit ) are three different ways in which the judiciary has sought to control the executive and legislative powers of the state. Historically and functionally they are closely linked. I intend to discuss them in their German context, focussing, in particular, on the Weimar Republic, that is to say, on the period between 1919 and 1932. Although I shall not be addressing the highly interesting parallels with the U.S. Supreme Court, or with the comparable courts in Italy, France, and, especially, Austria, I should like to invite attention to them, for there is really no Sonderweg in Germany as far as these developments are concerned.     

宪法修正案的合宪性审查:以印度为中心

为推介中国人民大学法学院博士培养成果,搭建论文品评乃至学术评价之平台,《法学家》自本期起专辟"博文精萃"一栏。该栏目由两部分组成:其一是"论文要旨",由博文作者对其博文进行全面系统而重点突出的介绍,一般宜包括如下要素:博文的体系架构;博文每章节的主要内容;博文的主要特点;博文的主要创新和不足;博文所研究领域的课题展望。其二是"论文评议",可以是答辩委员会的论文审查意见,或者评审专家的点评,具体宜包括如下要素:对论文的总体评价;对论文的体系及各章节的评价;对论文创新的评价;指出论文的不足以及进一步完善的方向。敬请关注并提出宝贵建议。     

论宪法裁决中的实体价值——以美国宪法司法审查的理论解说为中心

司法审查是美国法律制度的一个重要特征。然而，自马伯里诉麦迪逊案确立该制度之日起，支持和反对司法审查的理论争论就从未停止过，从而形成解释主义和非解释主义之分，实体价值在司法审查中的作用即为该争论之一部分。通过梳理和解读当前具有影响的支持者的理论和反对者的质疑，本文从宪法和法理的角度对两者之间的联系与区别作出检讨。而且，对司法审查理论依据的梳理，有助于理解该制度的理论发展动向。     

科学依据、同行评审与司法审查

科学依据已经成为现代政府规制活动的基础。同行评审在规制活动中的引入,能有效确保科学依据的可靠性,增强规制活动的透明度和可应责性。但同行评审并不能终结科学争议,相反却可能为规制对象提供弹药,引发更激烈的科学争议。法院不可避免成为规制科学争议的新阵地。作为通才型的法院,在面临日益精细的规制专业判断时,不应放弃作为看门人和守护者的司法责任。从传统的高度尊重到如今的严格审查,这种司法立场在确保科学依据可靠性的同时,也有助于增进规制活动的透明、审议、参与、问责等行政法价值。     

罪刑法定视野中的刑法合宪审查

刑法合宪审查是实现刑事法治、推进宪政进程的重要方面。刑法合宪审查应当以罪刑法定原则为立足基点。现代罪刑法定原则不仅具有传统的法外入罪禁止机能 ,而且能够延伸出崭新的法内出罪正当化解释机能。我国 97刑法具有“中国特色”的罪刑法定原则扭曲了现代罪刑法定的价值旨趣 ,导致了我国刑法合宪审查的机能缺损。只有在真正确认已成国际共识话语的现代罪刑法定原则、赋予其法外入罪禁止与出罪正当化解释双重机能 ,同时改革与完善人民代表大会制度 ,才能建构有效的刑法合宪审查机制。     

对国家司法考试制度的宪法学思考

自2002年开始,我国的司法考试至今已历三届。我们选取了国家司法考试制度中的若干问题,从宪法学的角度进行观察思考,以我国宪法所确立的制度、原则与精神为基准,对司法考试做一检视,其内容包括考试的性质、名称、主管机关、报考资格、通过条件、经费开支,以及法律职业资格的效力等问题。     

Forms of Judicial Review as Expressions of Constitutional Patriotism

Law and Philosophy -