基于合法律性的合法性——从韦伯到哈贝马斯

韦伯具有强烈的民族主义情结,这种情结使他尤为强调学术的文化政治担当,亦使其具有学者和"群众性政治家"双重身份。作为学者,他对现代社会"基于合法律性的合法性"(法理型统治)模式进行了详尽分析;作为群众性政治家,他又明确提出了"领袖民主"(卡理斯玛型统治)合法化模式。这两种理论模式均具有政治现实主义和实证论倾向。哈贝马斯总体上拒绝了韦伯合法化模式的描述性路径,并极力批判了其领袖民主模式;但他亦将其合法化论说建基于韦伯式基于合法律性的合法性模式之上,并做出了可以容纳道德性内容的理论重构。     

Between Truth,Legitimacy, and Legality in the Post-truth Era

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - The post-truth regime is a regime in which certain central categories of modernity seem to be...     

诸神之争、法制型支配与正当性——韦伯合法性理论的再认识

当韦伯以现代社会科学的视角对合法性与正当性的议题进行研究后,他对当下正当性等同于合法性的陈述几乎成了我们研究合法性与正当性的出发点,不论是反对还是赞同。但是,在韦伯的合法性理论中,作为正当性的合法性存在两种意涵,一种是与价值无涉的经验陈述;一种是与价值判断相关的倾向和论证。正是在对经验现象批驳的基础上,韦伯论证了法制型支配和领袖民主相配合下作为正当性的合法性之可能条件。当我们正本清源,对韦伯的合法性理论进行再认识,或许会产生新的启示。     

Legality and Justice

The present stage in the history of the Soviet state is characterized by the improvement of socialist democracy in all spheres. Legality is most closely connected with democracy. Legality ensures law and order. The policy of developing democracy does not mean that the individual will be left to himself, that observance of the laws is henceforth not obligatory, or that standards are being lowered and a nihilistic attitude toward state discipline is permissible. Certainly, the majority of Soviet people voluntarily observe the provisions of the law as a result of their great consciousness; they regard these provisions as the expression of the will of society as a whole. But at the same time, under present-day conditions, full force still attaches to Lenin's notion that "law is nothing without a machinery capable of compelling observance of its provisions."     

法律化、公开化和法定化——中国刑法限制刑罚权的历史进程

在我国刑罚史上,对刑罚权的限制经历了三次历史性嬗变,即从法律化到公开化再到法定化的限制刑罚权的历史进程。法律化使刑罚权从无限走向有限,公开化使刑罚权从神秘走向公开,而法定化则使刑罚权从擅断走向了法断。     

Law,Love and Legality

The argument of this paper is that our lives have meaning because theyare structured by rules which are open to the outside, through which theoutside can reflexively fold back into the rules so that it canregenerate and transform them. It is this process that constitutes theunity and integrity of our lives and gives them coherence. Our lives donot have certainty in the sense that there is always a definite answeras to how we should live. It is in the reflexive unity of law and lovethat we have the confidence to respond to the outside and create andtransform our narratives, however dangerous that may seem. We might callthis ``legality' – the ability to go beyond the law at theappropriate time. In this sense then, it is a creative activity and isto be distinguished from legalism, which thinks that following the rulesis all that there is. But following the rules is important, for it isonly in following them and being faithful to them that we gain theunderstanding of when to break them. That creativity, which stems fromthe precarious linking of the arbitrary and the structured, might leadus to think of legality as a form of anarchy – not of thenihilistic variety but of the ability creatively to break the law andthus regenerate it.     

Legality Policies and Theories of Legality: From Bananas to Radbruch's Formula*

Abstract. In this paper I shall take an inferential approach to legality (legal validity), and consider how the legality of a norm can be inferred, and what can be inferred from it. In particular, I shall analyse legality policies, namely, conditionals conferring the quality of legality upon norms having certain properties, and I shall examine to what extent such conditionals need to be positivistic, so that legality is only dependant on social facts. Finally, I shall consider how legality is transmitted from norm to norm and whether the ultimate legality policies (the rules of recognition) of a legal system need to be constituted by social facts.     

Law's Legitimacy and 'Democracy-Plus'

Is it the case that the law, in order to be fully legitimate,must not only be adopted in a procedurally correct way but mustalso comply with certain substantive values? In the first partof the article I prepare the ground for the discussion of legitimacyof democratic laws by considering the relationship between law’slegitimacy, its justification and the obligation to obey thelaw. If legitimacy of law is seen as based on the law beingjustified (as in Raz’s ‘service conception’),our duty to obey it does not follow automatically: it must bebased on some additional arguments. Raz’s conception oflegitimate authority does not presuppose, as many critics claim,any unduly deferential attitude towards authorities. Disconnectionof the law’s legitimacy from the absolute duty to obeyit leads to the second part of the article which consists ina critical scrutiny of the claim that the democratically adoptedlaw is legitimate only insofar as it expresses the right moralvalues. This claim is shown to be, under one interpretation(‘motivational’), nearly meaningless or, under anotherinterpretation (‘constitutional’), too strong tosurvive the pressure from moral pluralism. While we cannot hopefor a design of ‘pure procedural democracy’ (byanalogy to Rawlsian ‘pure procedural justice’),democratic procedures express the values which animate the adoptionof a democratic system in the first place.     

State Legitimacy and Self-defence

In this paper I outline a theory of legitimacy that grounds the state??s right to rule on a natural duty not to harm others. I argue that by refusing to enter the state, anarchists expose those living next to them to the dangers of the state of nature, thereby posing an unjust threat. Since we have a duty not to pose unjust threats to others, anarchists have a duty to leave the state of nature and enter the state. This duty correlates to a claim-right possessed by those living next to them, who also have a right to act in self-defence to enforce this obligation. This argument, if successful, would be particularly attractive, as it provides an account of state legitimacy without importing any normative premises that libertarians would reject.     

信任与政治合法性

信任是主体与主体、主体与客体间的互信关系、依赖关系、合作关系以及承诺与践行关系.以信任为基础的政治合法性能够产生社会和谐,政治合法性只有以信任为前提,才能增强人们之间的信任关系,形成信任与政治合法性的互动双赢格局.本文以信任为切入点,以信任的视域检视政治合法性,以期从中梳理信任与政治合法性的内在关联,从而前瞻其对中国未来政治发展的影响和意义.     

Strengthening Socialist Legality and Law and Order

During the period of the comprehensive building of communism, problems related to shaping a new kind of human being, overcoming remnants of the past, uprooting anti-social phenomena and, in particular, the most serious of these - crime - are coming to be of ever greater significance in the activity of Party organizations.     

The Legality of Law

Abstract. In this paper I outline various different objects of investigation that may be picked out by word “law” (or its cognates). All of these objects must be investigated in an integrated way before one can provide a complete philosophical explanation of the nature of law. I begin with the distinction between laws (artefacts) and law (the genre to which the artefacts belong). This leads me to the distinction between the law (of a particular legal system) and law (the genre of artefacts). Then I discuss the contrast between law (the genre of artefacts) and law (the practice). Finally I comment on legality as the name of an ideal for laws and legal systems to live up to. I commend H. L. A. Hart's explanation of the nature of law for investigating these various objects in an integraed way, while nevertheless respecting the distinctions among them. I also criticise some of R. M. Dworkin's work for failing to respect the same distinctions.     

论量刑合法

量刑合法是罪刑法定原则在量刑上的要求和表现,意即量刑符合刑法规定,但这并不意味着只符合刑法分则的规定,而应是综合地符合刑法总则与分则的所有相关规定。就法定刑而言,量刑合法并不只是静态地符合法定刑的规定,而是还动态地符合法定刑的司法变型即处断刑、宣告刑、执行刑或免刑的要求。量刑合法与量刑合理并不是彼此分离的两个独立之物,而是同时实现和互为表里的有机统一体,其中,量刑合法以量刑合理为实质内容,并表现为形式合理与实质合理的有机统一。     

制度认同与政治合法性

在现代社会,政府与公民、公民与公民之间的一切关系都以非人格化的制度为中介,作为政治权力具体表征的各项法律和政策能否获得社会认同,就成为政治合法性的基本判准.制度认同不是盲目的,也不是被迫的,而是建基于认知性期待与规范性期待统一之上的实践证成过程.一切影响和制约人们对制度的认知性期待形成、制度实施效果的因素以及影响每个人规范性期待形成的公民素质,都会对制度认同的形成产生影响,并规定着制度认同建构的可能路径.     

私力救济的正当性及其限度--一种以社会契约论为核心的解说

本文以社会契约论为核心,从权利保留、国家特许、补偿和放任、底线救济、个人自治、公力救济正当性危机等角度,阐释了私力救济的正当性.而私力救济也只在一定情形下一定限度内具有正当性,其边界为不损害他人合法利益和社会公益.     

在惩罚犯罪与保障人权之间：关于监听的法律思考

监听是世界各国为应付犯罪形势的新变化而发展起来的一种高技术化、高隐密性的强制侦查措施，其出现对于侦查机关打击和惩罚犯罪发挥了极其重要的作用。但是另一方面，监听的采用又严重侵犯了公民隐私权，因此，各国都对监听的采用规定了严格的法律程序，以防止侦查机关滥用监听，过度分割公民权利。我国刑事诉讼立法上对监听缺乏明确规定，这不利于保障公民人权，应当加以改进。     

The Legality of the Image

Intimate links exist between political power, law and images. Theology, philosophy and law have always developed elaborate rules about visuality. The iconophilic and iconoclastic traditions complemented one another and combined to construct subjectivity and to reconcile humanity with finitude. In modernity, law replaced religion and philosophy conceptualised legality through the aesthetic category of the sublime. The law understands the importance of the governance of images for the maintenance of the social bond and helps organise a regime of permitted images and forbidden idols which amounts to a complex legal administration of aesthetics and a related aesthetic organisation of law.