论社会保障法的社会法本质--兼论劳动法与社会保障法的关系

一、社会法概念的提出及其定位 关于法学分类方法,自古罗马法学家乌尔比安提出公法和私法的划分标准以来,就长期影响着大陆法系各国法律部门的定性.私法与公法之间的区分成为法律体系化的基础.①作为制度的结果,公法和私法的划分已形成了现代法律制度的基本结构,并因此形成法学的体系.就公法和私法的划分,从法所保护的利益为标准,凡是有关公益的法为公法;有关私益的法为私法.从法律关系的主体为标准,凡以国家或公同团体的一方或双方为主体而规定法律关系的法为公法;规定私人相互关系的法为私法.从法律关系的内容为标准,凡规定国家与公民之间的权力与服从关系的法为公法;而规定公民相互之间平等关系的法为私法.     

法律解读

人大:修法解决律师会见难、阅卷难因为2008年修改的《律师法》与当时未修改的《刑事诉讼法》有冲突,因此,公安和检察机关大都按照《刑事诉讼法》而不是按照《律师法》的要求来办案。宁夏天盛律师事务所主任党建国一次到看守所,提出依据《律师法》会见犯罪嫌疑人。看守所民警答复说:"我们还没有接到上级部门依     

论海商法之于民法的独立性

海商法被认为是民法的特别法是长期以来法学界认识上的重大误区。海商法有不同于民法的独立的历史渊源和发展轨迹,而且海商法与民法从法律属性、表现形式、立法体系、规范内容以及纠纷解决机制方面都迥然相异。这一认识上的错误也导致诸多危害后果:民法的伦理性抑制海商法的效益性;民法的地域性消解海商法的统一性;民法的私法性限缩了海商法的适用范围。     

经济法与行政法在何处重合？——试论经济行政法

经济法从产生以来就面临着其他部门法尤其是行政法的挑战,不断提出否定它的独立的法律部门的学说,甚至将其看成是行政法的分支学科,称其为经济行政法.其实,经济法有其独立的调整对象,在许多方面也不同于行政法.经济法决不等同于经济行政法.经济行政法是经济法和行政法的交叉或是说重合而形成的有其独立的调整对象的亚部门法.     

On the formal rationality of commercial law in common law system

Common law traditionally contains the formal rationality of commercial law. According to common law tradition, there is no possibility of preventing commercial law from being formalized. Formalization of commercial law in common law system is an institutional demand of market economy and is jointly promoted by the legal tradition of common law countries. The commercial law in the two legal systems indicates that the commercial law is made depending on the market economy and the form of commercial law is restricted by legal tradition. The formalization and assimilation of commercial law are an internal need as well as an inevitable trend in the course of economic development.     

Nome law: Deleuze & Guattari on the emergence of law

This article orientates Deleuze & Guattari’s pragmatic semiotics towards a semiotics of law. This pragmatic semiotics is explored, and directly related to the theory of emergence and complexity that is also a key feature of Deleuze & Guattari’s work. It is suggested that the development of these aspects of Deleuze & Guattari’s thought in relation to law allows the contours of a noological legal theory to be sketched out. Noology is the study of images of thought, their emergence, their genealogy, and their creation. A first exploration of this noological legal theory is then carried out by the conceptualisation of nome law as the first emergence of law as theorised by Deleuze & Guattari in the plateau “1837: Of the Refrain” from “A Thousand Plateaus”. This is a conceptualisation of law’s emergence in a far-from-equilibrium palaeolithic hunter-gatherer pack, and contrasts to accounts of law’s origin in a founding violence or mythical contract. It is the ‘big bang’ of legality, and the opening up of a first image of legality, problematic of social organisation, and anthropomorphic knowledge space.     

Justifying law: An explanation of the deep structure of American law

Conclusion Charles Darwin argued that human beings are what happen whenphysical laws act upon a planet with the characteristics that earthhad five billion years ago. Similarly, I have argued that theprimacy of individual will is what eventually happens when asociety allocates and limits coercion based upon rights. From timeto time particular visions of the good or the right dominate publicbehavior, but they are eventually enframed by rights — the authoritative claim of each person to respect.I have argued that the propositional structure of American law—the laws themselves — can be seen to be a logically consistentsystem of propositions stemming from the axiom that the will ofeach person is worthy of respect. This is an explanatory, not anormative, proposition. The axiom was not put there by anyoneand the law derived from it, any more than the human brian wasput there and the theory of relativity derived from it. The axiomcame to be embodied in k because of a fact — the single universalcharacteristic of human beings that is relevant to the question ofarranging coercion is individual will — and a process — the right ofeach person to demand a justification for coercion used upon him.Since will is universal to human beings, this would suggest thatany rights-based legal system would evince a general structuresimilar to our own. Particularities of national culture, naturalresources, population density, and so on would produce a verydifferent liberty frontier from the one facing this country andhence, different laws. But the general structure of law — the relationship between principle and policy decision, the role of thebasic rights, and so on — should be similar. This similarity shouldprovide a common basis for cooperation between states, transcending particularities of economic structure, political structure and ideology. We have seen that a very broad range ofeconomic and political institutions may be justified. The essential difference between states lies not in the different ways that theyarrange institutions but in the different ways that they justifythem. Those that justify them to people as persons are similar.Those that justify them by conformity to a design are different.The theory set out here is not a design. It is an explanation. Onevirtue of explanations is that they draw forth other explanations.More importantly, they offer perspective — they tell us what weare up to. As the social relations which law must rationalizebecome ever more complex, perspective becomes ever more necessary. The simple laws have already been written. The connectionbetween the doctrine of consideration and the first principle isobvious. The connection between the hard look doctrine ofreviewing administrative agencies and the second principle isnowhere near so obvious (though it is a lovely example of thejudicial process enframing the realm of uncertainty). The morecomplex and artificial the institution, the poorer the guidance ofintuition and the more necessary are conscious guides to decision.Justification comes easy to printers. Most of them don't knowwhy a page of print that has straight margines left and right isjustified. They don't need to know, for the idea has immediateintuitive appeal; it is easy to accept and to remember, and, onceremembered, it is an effective guide to behavior. It is easy to seethat this line of print is not justified and to do somethingabout it. It is not so easy to tell whether the hard look doctrine orthe enforcement of a surrogate motherhood contract sits fairly on itspage. Justification of law requires an understanding of thecriterion against which it is being done. There is an intuitive core— a sense — to any act of judgment, but that core can be illuminated and developed by an understanding of the framework withinwhich it operates.     

民法与经济法价值之比较分析

本文首先从经济关系层面出发 ,对民法与经济法的互动进行了分析。指出二者价值差异的根源在于经济思想、公平理念和利益观的差异。二者价值体系在总体上具有一致性、谐和性和互补性。同时揭示了他们间的文化与精神的互补、功能的相互矫正及调整对象的交叉。     

经济法的公法性--以马克思的市民社会与政治国家的二元理论为视角

马克思认为,市民社会既是指人类社会的一个特定的发展时期,又是指与“政治国家”相对应的私人活动领域,其中主要是私人的物质交往关系。在资本主义以前的社会中,政治国家与市民社会在很大程度上是重合的。二者的分离则是资本主义市场经济发展的内在要求,随着生产力的发展,政治国家终将统一于市民社会。经济法的产生是市民社会与政治国家的融合在法律上的一种反映,经济法是规范国家权力干预市民社会经济生活的基本法,表现出很强的公法性。     

浅议法的形式合理性

法的形式合理性理论是西方法治文明的产物,自上个世纪以来一直是法学界所关注的一个热点问题.通过对韦伯、麦考密克、哈贝马斯等中外学者关于法的形式合理性理论的考察,强调对法的形式合理性的研究不仅是一个有价值的理论问题,还是一个具有重要现实意义的实践问题.当下我国在构建社会主义法律体系过程中.大量移植和借鉴西方法律,从而更加凸显了法的形式合理性在法律的发展和法治建设中的地位和作用.     

交叉学科背景下医事法方向法律硕士课程设置的优化

我国医事法方向法律硕士培养自1986年以来经过30多年的发展,历经萌芽、发展与逐渐规范化阶段,迄今已经形成综合院校模式、医学基础模式与医法融合模式三类模式.但目前作为硕士能力培养基础的医事法方向法律硕士课程设置却依然存在逻辑失明、内容紊乱和支撑乏力的问题,应基于逻辑基点、具体进路、师资保障三个角度对其进行系统优化.