反思与重构——以既有的西方法律思想史课程及其教科书为线索

西方法律思想史前辈学者的辛勤努力下 ,西方法律思想史研究 (其成果主要和必然表现在课程和教科书上 )取得了前所未有的成绩。但是批判和反思是研究的必经途径和必要的方法 ,西方法律思想史研究亦然。因此 ,在现代语境下 ,需要不断地对西方法律思想史进行重新的理解和解释 ,尤其是对西方法律思想史的研究对象、学科性质、研究意义和教科书的写法进行必要的反思和批判 ,以期重构西方法律思想史。     

U.S. CLS

This essay offers a brief account of the rise of cls thought in the United States and of its development within a largely hostile legal academy. As the essay suggests, cls thought has been variously deformed, arrested, normalized, and diffused – leaving the contemporary American legal academy in a state of suspended animation. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

政治文明:全面建设小康社会的重要目标

政治文明是中国当代马克思主义与时俱进的理论创新。本文根据江泽民同志在十六大报告中关于政治文明的论述精神,分析了政治文明的概念和提出建设社会主义政治文明命题的意义,揭示了政治文明建设在全面建设小康社会宏伟目标中的地位,论述了改革政治体制对于建设社会主义政治文明的作用以及建设社会主义政治文明的指导思想、本质要求、战略目标、具体内容、关键环节等问题。     

Justice and the neutral state: A postmodern,feminist critique of lehning's account of justice

In this journal, Lehning (1990) defended the liberal view of political justice, arguing on behalf of a comprehensive principle of state neutrality as the linchpin of justice. By failing to deal with the postmodern challenge to the Enlightenment-liberalist conception of neutrality and by thoroughly ignoring the feminist understanding in which neutrality actually conceals a masculinist bias, Lehning's analysis is seriously undermined with respect to its possibility for understanding, let alone for accomplishing political justice.     

“属地原则”与“正当程序”的整合

在美国民事诉讼中,地域管辖规则要求初审法院必须对当事人享有属地上的管辖权,联邦宪法要求初审法院对当事人的这种管辖权必须符合其第十四条修正案中规定的正当程序的要求。在将这两种原则性的管辖规则整合适用方面,美国联邦最高法院作出了若干相关判例。这些判例中的一些思想对于我国地域管辖的完善是有借鉴意义的。     

美国的法律家长主义理论与实践

在美国法上,法律家长主义是指法律为了当事人自身的利益而限制其自治。在理论上,对法律家长主义争论主要是从法律经济学和法律价值论两个维度进行的,对家长主义式的规定有无效率、法律是否应保持价值中立和自治这一价值在法律中的地位进行探讨。在实践中,法律家长主义在美国合同法、行政法和宪法中有着广泛的应用,对当事人的缔约自由、表达自由、平等权等进行限制,对市场经济和社会保障中的某些行为予以规制。     

Dogmatic Liberalism? T.R.S. Allan and the Common Law Constitution

Book reviewed in this article:
T.R.S. Allan, Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law     

The Politics of Appointment and the Federal Courts'Role in Regulating America: U.S. Courts of Appeals Judgeships from T.R. to F.D.R.

Historians and political scientists have noted that appointments of judges to the U.S. Courts of Appeals are not determined by senatorial courtesy alone. What has not been adequately explained is why and when a president defers to a senator's choice rather than seek to control the selection. This article attempts to understand the politics of federal appellate court appointments. The author first identifies a major change in the work of the courts of appeals during the years 1900-1945—the growth in review of the actions of newly created federal regulatory agencies. Then, by examining Justice Department files and presidential correspondence, he discoveres three patterns of appointment emerging in the same period. The patterns vary with presidential perceptions of the role of the federal government and of the courts of appeals' ability to affect accomplishment of administration goals. Appointments during the first years of the presidencies of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and during the Harding and Coolidge administrations were dominated by patronage concerns. Those administrations yielded to the recommendations of senators and demonstrated no interest in the policy-making potential of these courts. In the two other patterns the White House played a more active role, with senators more often deferring to the president's selection. Concerns about professionalism dominated selections in Taft's and Hoover's administrations: because they recognized the policy importance of those judgeships but saw the role of government as limited, they sought judicial craftsmen who would make policy only incrementally. Policy concerns dominated selections during Wilson's administration and the latter years of both the Roosevelts' administrations: Justice Department officials screened nominees to determine their policy orientation, because federal appellate court judgeships were perceived as crucial policy positions that could affect the president's ability to implement his reform programs.     

侵权法的经济学理论：一个思想史的札记

"法律与经济学"理论运动在40多年的时间里成为当今美国主流法学流派之一,这在法律思想史上实属罕见。法律与经济学对法学和法律的冲击是全方位的,通过以"思想史的角度"对法律与经济学之"侵权法理论"展开讨论,重点表现在科斯的成本理论、卡拉布雷西的规则理论和波斯纳的侵权法经济分析理论。     

Hidden corporate profits in the U.S. prison system: the unorthodox policy-making of the American Legislative Exchange Council

Using a leaked document trove containing 800 model bills, we analyze the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) hidden corporate profit making in the prison–industrial complex. We find that ALEC seeks to expand the private prison industry in three ways: (1) promoting greater use of private prisons, goods, and services, (2) promoting greater use of prison labor, and (3) increasing the size of the prison population. ALEC’s efforts to increase the prison population by expanding definitions of existing crime, creating new crimes, enhancing enforcement of existing crimes, amending the trial process to increase the likelihood of incarceration, and lengthening prison sentences for crimes pose a threat to civil liberties. ALEC’s unorthodox policy approach exemplifies John Gaventa’s theory that powerful interests maintain their power by creating conditions in which citizens are not able to identify and advocate on behalf of their interests.     

Keegstra and R.A.V.: A Comparative Analysis of the Canadian and U.S. Approaches to Hate Speech Legislation

This article argues that the similarities and differences in the approaches and outcomes of the Canadian and United States cases on hate speech are reflective of the similarities and differences in two basic worldviews-communitarianism and liberalism. The article briefly explores the two views, sets out the Keegstra and R.A.V. cases and concludes that the approach in Keegstra reflects a communitarian philosophy while the approach in R.A.V. reflects the liberal philosophical position.     

THE LIFE COURSE OF CRIMINOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES: THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY 2003 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS*

The field of criminology lacks a sense of its own history. To rectify this situation, I apply the concepts and framework of the life‐course perspective to the development of criminology as a discipline. Examining criminology in the United States over the last 100 years, I discuss three eras (or life‐course phases), intellectual continuities and turning points in the field. My thesis is that if we knew our history, we would realize that ideas about crime matter. I offer a revised version on how to view criminology and in doing so address the theme of the 2003 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, “The Challenge of Practice, the Benefits of Theory.”     

论美国“文化遗产犯罪量刑准则”及其对我国的启示

美国＂文化遗产犯罪量刑准则＂是在美国＂1987年量刑准则＂基础上制定、专门针对文化遗产犯罪的刑事处罚制度。＂文化遗产犯罪量刑准则＂以确定性的量刑方法为指导,实施量刑等级制度。其主要特色在于确定了若干加重量刑的标准,较以往的美国有关文化遗产犯罪的法律在量刑上更为确定和严厉。借鉴美国＂文化遗产犯罪量刑准则＂,克服我国文化遗产犯罪的刑事处罚制度中存在的保护范围不太广、量刑情节不具体等缺陷,无疑有利于加强我国文化遗产的法律保护。     

The Chimera of Proportionality: Institutionalising Limits on Punishment in Contemporary Social and Political Systems

The concept of proportionality has been central to the retributive revival in penal theory, and underlies desert theory's normative and practical commitment to limiting punishment. Theories of punishment combining desert‐based and consequentialist considerations also appeal to proportionality as a limiting condition. In this paper we argue that these claims are founded on an exaggerated idea of what proportionality can offer, and in particular fail properly to consider the institutional conditions needed to foster robust limits on the state's power to punish. The idea that appeals to proportionality as an abstract ideal can help to limit punishment is, we argue, a chimera: what has been thought of as proportionality is not a naturally existing relationship, but a product of political and social construction, cultural meaning‐making, and institution‐building. Drawing on evolutionary psychology and comparative political economy, we argue that philosophers and social scientists need to work together to understand how the appeal of the idea of proportionality can best be realised through substantive institutional frameworks under particular conditions.