试论如何平衡实体正义和程序正义

实体正义与程序正义冲突的情况下如何平衡两者的关系存在着不同的观点,而这些观点均不同程度地存在着绝对化和片面性的缺陷,本文从部门法追求的价值目标的角度浅析了如何平衡两者之间的关系。     

浅论司法潜规则——以实体正义与程序正义为视角

法治是指对公共权力的法律控制，也是指以法律规则对社会的规范化治理。潜规则的盛行，是法治的异化，也是法治建设中的一块绊脚石。导致司法潜规则的原因有很多，本文将从正义价值出发，简述程序正义和实体正义与司法潜规则的相互影响，以及面对程序正义和实体正义的价值冲突与平衡，我们该如何对待司法潜规则。     

浅析实体正义和程序正义

正义是法律所追求的重要价值目标之一,对正义之分以及其相互关系也是法学界历来所探究的热点问题。程序定义与实体正义具有必然因果联系。也就是说,没有程序正义就没有实体正义,程序正义是维护并验证实体正义的必要条件。本文认为不管程序正义和实体正义何者为先,法律建立的目标是为了达致整个社会的正义,那么为了达到社会正义有时应牺牲个体正义。     

论国际私法中冲突正义与实质正义的冲突与融合

正义是国际私法所追求的重要价值之一。冲突正义是传统国际私法的价值内核,实质正义是现代国际私法法律选择方法的根本价值取向。从冲突正义向实质正义的嬗变是当代国际私法发展的基本趋势。但这一趋势并不表明冲突正义与实质正义是相互抵触的关系,传统的冲突规则没有因为要追求实质正义而被舍弃,其存在价值至今仍不能被完全否定,并且冲突正义与实质正义之间的冲突是完全可以得到平衡的。而当代国际私法就是在对各种理论进行了扬弃后,向着冲突正义与实质正义融合的方向发展。     

论程序正义在促进实体正义进程中的价值体现

本文从程序正义与实体正义理论之契合和当代中国程序正义与实体正义的取向等方面就程序正义在促进实体正义进程中的价值体现作了简要的分析和论述。     

程序正义概念与标准的再认识

程序正义是一种法律理念 ,即任何法律决定必须经过正当的程序 ,而这种程序的正当性体现为特定的主体根据法律规定和法律授权所作出的与程序有关的行为。程序正义的标准最值得注意的是程序规范的严格遵守和主体评价两个方面。既不能以实体的正义作为参照去评判程序的正义 ,也不能以程序的正义作为基准去决定实体的正义 ,实质正义才是唯一的选择。     

论公司正义

我国应该借鉴合同正义原则的经验,在公司法中引进公司正义原则,使其成为与公司自治相并列的基本原则。该原则应以"法理阐释"的方式存在,无需在公司法总则中作出明文规定。公司正义既包括分配正义,也包括矫正正义;既包括实体正义,也包括程序正义。公司是多方参与者不同利益交汇的平台,引入"利益关系"的概念有利于厘清公司各参与方的利益冲突。公司法需要沿着分配正义与矫正正义、实体正义与程序正义的不同路径,结合利益衡量方法,对不同主体之间的利益关系作出恰如其分的规范。公司正义的含义具有模糊性,但有利于其弹性适用。这需要法官借助法律解释方法来妥当地适用现有公司法条文,也需要法官借助利益衡量等方法来填补法律漏洞,创造性地适应社会对法律的需求。公司自治是公司法的基本原则,但没有制约的公司自治会导致不正义。法官需要借助公司正义原则对公司自治进行制衡,但是应该采取谨慎而节制的态度。     

浅议实体正义与程序正义

在中国,一贯就有重实体正义而轻程序正义的传统,认为这两者是内容与形式、目的与手段的关系。实际上,程序正义自身却具有独立的价值。无论程序正义还是实体正义,其终极指向都是社会实质正义,法的正义价值是实体正义和程序正义的统一,两者是对立统一的,决不能偏废一方。     

浅谈专利审查过程中的“程序正义”

专利审查是一项行政审批工作,而行政审批中包含有自由裁量权,如何能够在专利审查过程中平衡申请人与公众的利益,是每一位专利审查员值得深入思考的问题.文中首先指出专利审查工作中存在的问题,然后介绍了什么是“程序正义”以及“程序正义”在专利审查工作中的作用,并结合具体案例的审查实践进一步说明坚持“程序正义”的专利审查的合理性和重要性.     

如何正确对待程序正义与实体正义

在中国,一贯就有重实体正义而轻程序正义的传统,认为这两者是内容与形式、目的与手段的关系。实际上,程序正义自身却具有独立的价值。无论程序正义还是实体正义,其终极指向都是社会实质正义。法的正义价值是实体正义和程序正义的统一,两者是对立统一的,决不能偏废一方。     

环境法上的公正

环境法的公正具有自己的特征,环境法上存在着区域公正,国际公正,社会公正和代际公正。区域公正是指在相关区域环境权利与义务的分配是否恰当平衡。国际公正涉及国与国之间享有环境的权利和国际环境义务的分担。社会公正要求将环境行为置于社会背景下认识和解决。代际公正要求现实环境问题的解决方案要考虑到下代人的利益。     

Juvenile Justice in Oregon: Balanced and Restorative Justice in Action

The goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) are to hold juvenile offenders meaningfully accountable, hear and empower crime victims and engage communities both as stakeholders who have been negatively impacted and as advocates to make things right for the crime victim, offender, and community. This article examines how several Oregon juvenile justice agencies have put BARJ into action over the last 25 years, highlighting specific examples of how several agencies have made this the philosophical underpinning of their work. An overview of the philosophical principles, values, and goals that drive this approach is also discussed.     

Paradigm Muddle: The Threat to Restorative Justice Posed by Its Merger with Community Justice

The restorative justice movement has great potential to reform the way society responds to crime and wrongdoing. One might logically assume that the greatest challenge to the new restorative justice paradigm is the traditional punitive criminal justice paradigm itself. A more immediate threat, however, is posed by merging community justice, another approach to reforming the justice system, with restorative justice. Community justice has superficial similarities to restorative justice but relies on the underlying authoritarian assumptions of the existing criminal justice system and on processes that exclude most of those individuals directly affected by the offense. This paper clarifies and contrasts the key elements of both the restorative justice and the community justice paradigms and explains the threat to restorative justice posed by combining and confusing the two.     

Justice Here and Now: A Personal Reflection on the Restorative and Community Justice Paradigms

Cuba has long had one of the lowest crime rates in Latin America and in the Americas generally. Incidents of crime against women such as rape and domestic violence, for example, appear to be lower in Cuba than in the rest of Latin America and the United States. Community organizations in Cuba play a significant role in controlling criminal activity by generating and sustaining citizen participation, generating an understanding of the nature of community crime, and helping to form partnerships for community policing. Cuba has attempted to obtain citizen participation in order to resolve social problems, including crime, by instilling a sense of community among its citizens and providing them with the structure of mass organizations that mobilize people on local, regional, and national levels. Residents attribute Cuba’s relatively low crime rate to the sense of community created and maintained by such mass organizations. This article focuses on the role that mass organizations and especially Committees for the Defense of the Revolution play in the Cuban experience of community policing and justice.     

立法公正的实现与保障机制

立法公正不仅包括立法程序上的公正 ,还包括立法的实体公正 ,而立法实体的公正则是经由程序公正而获得的。立法程序公正的基本要件是程序公开、程序参与、程序自治、程序中立、程序效率等。实现立法公正要进一步完善公众立法的直接参与制度、立法公开制度、立法回避制度以及立法听证制度等     

复和正义和刑事调解

犯罪自产生以来 ,其恶性随着人类文明的进步而加大 ,相反 ,人类用于对付犯罪的刑罚手段却渐趋轻缓和文明。毫无疑问 ,到目前为止 ,刑罚仍是对付犯罪最为有效的手段之一 ,审判也是解决犯罪问题的主要方式。但由于建立在报应基础之上的刑罚 ,本质上是一种“以恶制恶” ,因此 ,其弊端也是显而易见的。由此 ,在处理犯罪问题时需要引入复和正义 ,并进一步扩大刑事调解范围     

An Expansive,Transformative View of Restorative Justice

This article addresses two distinct but related concerns. The first section argues for adoption of a wide‐ranging conceptualization of restorative justice, one that encompasses concern for community, structural, economic and social levels of attention, as well as personal and direct consideration for parties to crimes and conflicts. It is a view of restorative justice, like that espoused by Sullivan and Tifft, that is transformative in conception, ambition, and operation. It is based on awareness that making distinctions between restorative and community justice may be useful for some purposes but expresses a preference for thinking of these two perspectives as part of a larger whole. The second part of the article highlights 10 values or principles that may help guide the development and implementation of an expansive view of restorative justice. It suggests that a person who wishes to pursue a more peaceful and just world should be ethically engaged, behave in an exemplary fashion, beware of and avoid exploitation, fully embrace equality, be empathic, act so as to empower oneself and others, recognize the entwinement of all people and the earth, select interventions that are effectual while being error‐aware, appreciate that ends and means are enmeshed, and act with earnest enthusiasm.     

公正立法与立法公开

公正立法在本质上是一种现代立法理念,在追求立法价值公正的同时,也追求立法程序的公正和立法结果的公正。公正的立法是在公正价值的指导下通过公正的程序而实现的。立法公开不仅是程序公正的组成部分,也是走向公正立法的重要途径。     

论作为第三种规范的法律正义

将法、正义、法律正义视为同一事物的意念 ,是一个需待澄清的误解性意念。法、正义、法律正义不仅有重合会通的一面 ,更有各自的界限。法是一种常见的制度规范 ,正义是一种高层次伦理规范 ,而法律正义则是融合了法和正义两种要素的第三种规范。法律正义也是一种正义 ,是正义中的基本正义、有形正义和正义中的强者。法律正义也是一种法律规范 ,是高层次法律规范 ,是区别于恶法劣法的良规良法 ,是理想和现实相结合的法律规范。明辨三者的界限 ,方能洞知法有良恶优劣的分别 ,完整地认知法的面貌 ,倾力于建设以良法美制为基础的现代法治国家     

论法官的道德素质与司法公正

法官良好的道德素质是实现司法公正的必要主观条件之一。法官的道德素质状况既影响着实体公正 ,又影响着程序公正和形象公正。良好的道德素质使司法公正成为法官坚定的职业信仰和自觉的职业追求 ,使公正司法成为法官自愿的职业惯性行为。多方加强法官队伍职业道德建设是司法公正的客观要求。