American Adversarialism Reviewing Robert A. Kagan's Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law

Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. By Robert A. Kagan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. 339 pp. Hardcover $49.95. ISBN: 0-674-00621-6.     

The Ethics of Legalism

Abstract. "Legalism" is defined as requiring that all matters of legal regulation and controversy ought so far as possible to be conducted in accordance with predetermined rules of considerable generality and clarity. Thus there may be moral limits on governments which ban them from acting on the substantive moral merits of situations with which they have to deal. This is most important in public law, but also applies in private law, e.g., in cases involving property. Hume, Kant, and Hayek are examined in respect of their case for legalism; Alexy and Finnis also reviewed. Autonomy is the foundation for legalism, and justifies "ethical positivism," in T. Campbell's phrase. Critical legal studies (Unger, Kelman, Kennedy et al.) however challenge legalism's premises. But the "critical" arguments against reification merely raise, they do not settle, the issue about the politics of legalism and the desirability of legal dogmatics. With all faults, legalism is a prerequisite of free government.     

捍卫法条主义

在中国语境中,法条主义俨然是一个充满＂贬义＂指称的＂稻草人＂概念,但这一指称概念是由反法条主义在一种＂自我想象性＂的立场上＂型塑＂出来的。在西方,人们在对待法条主义的＂是＂与＂非＂问题上从来就没有达成过任何＂共识性＂的认识。在当下的中国,尽管人们都在极力地批判法条主义,但这种处于＂穷途末路＂的法条主义却是需要我们予以坚决捍卫的。法条主义所处的＂穷途末路＂困境恰恰说明了中国法律学研究的贫困,努力推进对中国＂法条＂的法律学研究是中国法条主义肩负的社会责任。     

格义的再现:法家学说与法学对等关系之建构

在印度佛教传入中国的早期,为了促成中国人对于佛教名相的理解,竺法雅开创了格义之法。清末民初,在西方法学传入中国的早期,格义之法再次浮现:外来的法学被理解为中国的法家学说,法家学说与法学之间的关系,逐渐被建构成一种虚拟的对等关系。其中,严复运用格义之法,以中国固有的法家解释西方的法学家;梁启超、沈家本、胡适等人以外来的法学解释甚至取代中国固有的法家学说,则是对反向格义方法的运用。反向格义也是格义。无论是以法家学说解释法学,还是以法学解释法家学说,都表明格义之法乃是中国现代法学兴起的一个环节。回顾法家学说与法学对等关系的建构及其终结,省思格义与中国现代法学之间的隐秘联系,是当下及未来中国的法学实现理论自觉的必要前提。     

“Critical Empiricism” in American Legal Studies: Paradox,Program, or Pandora's Box?

This essay was originally presented at the Conference on American and German Traditions of Sociological Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thought organized by the Center for European Legal Policy, Bremen, Federal Republic of Germany, July 10-12, 1986. Subsequent versions were discussed at the Department of Sociology, Northwestern University (February 1987) and the Workshop on Legal Theory at the University of Virginia Law School (March 1987). Comments by participants at these events, members of the Amherst Seminar, Boaventura Santos, Kristin Bumiller, and G. Edward White are gratefully acknowledged. An earlier version of the paper appears in Joerges & Trubek, eds., Critical Legal Thought in Germany and America: A German-American Debate (Baden-Baden: NOMOS, 1989).     

The Publius Paradox

At the Philadelphia convention assembled to draft a new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton argued ‘[e]stablish a weak government and you must at times overleap the bounds. Rome was obliged to create dictators’. Publius then expands upon this argument in several ways in the Federalist. I suggest that Publius identifies a dynamic or mechanism, the ‘Publius Paradox’, that warrants great attention: under particular conditions, excessive weakness of government may become excessive strength. If the bonds of constitutionalism are drawn too tightly, they will be thrown off altogether when circumstances warrant. After illustrating and then analysing this ‘Publius Paradox’, I turn briefly to its implications, the main one being that constitutional law should be cast as a loosely‐fitting garment – particularly the executive component of the constitution and the scope of executive powers.     

普法的悖论

"普法"概念深处隐含难以消解的悖论,主要表现为"意志"的悖论、"目的"的悖论和"知识"的悖论。意志悖论使法律扭曲为少数人的意志,目的悖论使法律堕入功利主义泥潭,知识悖论无视法的论辩结构,也无助于培育公民的政治正义观念。普法实质上是功利主义和中国传统法家的"杰作",阻碍了法治的长远发展。     

The Paradox of Blackmail

Abstract. The author questions himself about what is known as "the paradox of blackmail," that is, the fact that blackmail is the result of the combination of two ways of behaving which are often both lawful if taken individually, but unlawful once they are connected. The author also examines whether the harm principle typical of liberal orders provides the justification (the rationale) for the assumption of blackmail as a crime, or whether it is instead necessary to turn to another justificatory basis: the exploitation principle. However, as this principle leads to legal moralism, it opposes a liberal ethics. Thus, one is faced with the dilemma of either accepting the harm principle thus decriminalizing blackmail, or accepting the exploitation principle and going against principles of liberalism. To escape this dilemma the author distinguishes between various types (five categories) of blackmail, concluding that only non-paradoxical types fit the common-sense expectation of criminalization.     

物权法定主义研究

物权法定主义作为物权法的一项基本原则 ,学者们对其褒贬不一。本文在探究其内涵及产生根源的基础上 ,认为物权法定主义并不违背民法的意思自治原则 ,物权法定主义在我国物权立法中应当得到坚定的坚持。     

The Double Paradox of Juvenile Justice

This article considers the history of a century of juvenile justice. Illinois 'invented' the separate 'children's court' in 1899 and this concept was spearheaded in Northern America, Great Britain and continental Europe in the first decades of the new century. However, a century after its foundation the future of the juvenile court is in doubt everywhere in the Western world. Some conclude that there is a cyclical pattern in juvenile justice policies. That proposition is rejected in this article. The proposition of a cyclical pattern also presupposes that there is no real problem at stake in treating juvenile offenders. The main point of this article, however, is that juvenile justice cannot escape trying to solve a very complicated foundational issue. This issue is a double paradox, that is, juvenile justice has to solve two philosophical questions: the justification of punishment and the justification of punishment for non-adults. This diagnosis presents a new conceptual framework for an analysis of the history of juvenile justice.     

法家重刑思想再认识

一重刑思想作为法家学说的重要内容之一虽已是一个不争的事实,但重刑思想包括哪些内容,学者的认识不尽相同。有学者认为重刑,专指中国奴隶制刑法和封建制刑法中的严刑峻法的制度和思想。它至少包括以下几个内容:1·刑种苛繁;2·罚不当罪;3·肉刑发达;4·死刑残刻①。也有学者认     

税收法定主义原则与政府税收立法权的界定

税收法定主义原则是税法的首要原则。根据这一原则,税收要素、税收程序基本方面的立法权都应由议会机关保留。政府部门只有对税收程序中的具体问题制定行政法规的权力。即使在授权立法的情况下,对政府部门的授权也只能针对个别、具体的事项。     

中古基督教法哲学:法治主义的神学分支?

一、引言 在解释近代欧洲何以能取得独特的成就时,历史哲学家道森(Christopher Dawson)认为基督教主宰的中世纪文化以及在此基础上发展而来的西方文化,是影响和改变西方世界的新兴力量的最重要的源泉,并提出了"宗教是历史的钥匙"这一学术信条.     

税收法定化:从税收衡平到税收实质公平的演进

税收法定主义原生于民主并以议会为权力标志决定税赋的取舍与存废,而在均衡与非均衡经济制度迥异的境况下,议会权衡公平与正义之基石如何安放,岂能以泛公平论轻率涵盖之。很显然,我国非均衡经济被植入了解构自然平衡的基因——国家普遍深度干预,以致原生态的均衡经济内在的自然公平状态被打破,加之政府及主管部门干预的恣意与任性,名曰公平税收实乃无意识地借公平之美名而倍行不公平,油门当了刹车踩,势必导致社会财富分配不公的尺蠖效应,在此,理论上深入反思并从实践中强化逆调整,方能在税收衡平与法定之下促成非均衡经济社会的实质公平。     

宪法裁判与民主的悖论

当今许多国家为了维护民主纷纷建立了宪法裁判制度,然而也有些国家却为了民主不被侵害而拒绝宪法裁判。宪法裁判与民主的紧张自始至今从未消除,其实它们之间无矛盾性又无必然性,宪法裁判有助于民主,同时它也存在一定的民主风险。为发挥宪法裁判对民主的优长,应该运用法院的司法功能去避免其对民主的危害,这需要在宪法裁判与民主之间进行调适,恰当界定宪法裁判机关与立法机关之间的适当领域。对存在民主缺憾的国家来说,宪法裁判不失为至关重要的选择。     

Devotion to Legalism: On the Brexit Case

This note examines the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Brexit case, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The case upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the claim that the foreign affairs prerogative provided a legal basis for giving notice to EU institutions of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. But the Supreme Court's preferred basis for dismissing that claim rested on the more general proposition that significant constitutional change can only be effected by statute. This position offers the germs of a jurisprudence of constitutional change and was substantiated by means of an analysis of Parliament's dual capacity as legislator and constituent agent. Miller also includes important and potentially innovative dicta on the relationship between international and domestic sources of law.     

The Gender Paradox in Prison Suicide Rates

Few studies of prison suicide have focused on suicide among female inmates, and even fewer studies have provided comparisons of rates by gender. Using national data on U.S. prisons and suicide, this study examined the “gender paradox” in prison suicide rates by comparing suicide rates of female and male inmates and U.S. residents and then examined characteristics of prisons that reported suicides. Findings indicated that rates of suicide in prison were similar for female and male inmates, but rates were higher for female inmates and lower for male inmates compared to the respective rates for female and male U.S. residents. Prisons that reported female suicides evidenced significant differences in prison conditions, including higher assault rates and mental health service utilization, compared to prisons for males and female prisons without suicide. Implications of the findings for understanding the gender paradox and for prison suicide prevention are discussed.