为职权主义辩护

"职权主义"最早起源于欧陆,最初的含义系查清案件事实的方法,后演变为大陆法系国家普遍的诉讼形态。"职权主义"与"当事人主义"的对立并非历史的产物,而系诉讼法学者的理论创设。"职权主义"的核心内涵也非一成不变,随着时代的发展在不断丰富。当代的"职权主义"可界定为"诉讼以社会利益优先为导向、国家权力为主导、实质真实为目标,审前程序凸显侦检机关的优势侦查权,审判程序凸显法官主导控制权的正当程序模型"。时下学界对"职权主义"存在较大的批评,这主要源于对传统职权主义诉讼的误解以及对当事人主义的理想化。中国因国家权力主导的制度背景、追求客观真实的司法传统以及原有职权主义诉讼的基本构架,既应避免进入"当事人主义"或"对抗制"的陷阱,也不应设立理念混乱、制度杂糅的"混合式诉讼",而应坚持走职权主义的道路。     

司法认定驰名商标的职权性审查

人民法院在知识产权民事个案中认定驰名商标，本是保护驰名商标的重要执法措施。但由于各方面的原因，司法认定驰名商标出现了被“异化”和“神话”的现象。司法层面上的原因是驰名商标诉讼中过于强调当事人主义的诉讼模式，职权主义诉讼模式被弱化。认为驰名商标诉讼的目的和价值决定驰名商标诉讼中应强化法院主动审查的职权主义诉讼模式，并在司法实践中从程序上构建判前内部审核制度和实体上强化司法主动干预两方面规制司法认定驰名商标制度。     

论刑事诉讼模式的改革及完善

刑事诉讼制度的发展经历了从传统向现代的转变,现代刑事诉讼模式主要有职权主义诉讼和当事人主义诉讼。这两种诉讼模式尽管在诉讼结构、发现犯罪事实等方面有许多不同,但同作为现代诉讼模式,两者没有实质的不同,在人权保障、诉讼职能等方面有很多共同点。我国现行的刑事诉讼模式不属于职权主义诉讼,在诉讼理念上存在重大差别。本文指出我国的刑事诉讼改革应确立一种现代的诉讼模式,并建立与之相配套的制度。     

浅论民事诉讼中的新“超职权主义”

我国的民事审判方式改革应确定基本的方向,采用完全的当事人主义诉讼模式是不可取的。职权主义诉讼模式有诸多不足,要从国情出发,紧随世界各国民事审判方式改革的潮流,改革民事诉讼中的超职权主义,揭示我国民事审判方式改革的正确方向,是我国司法改革的当务之急。     

民事诉讼主体诉讼中举证角色的定位之浅析——法官是否应该调查证据

在民事司法领域中,法官依职权主动调查证据,多年的置疑声不断。从我国目前的法律规定来看,很显然,法官当然享有此种职权。这种承袭大陆法系法律制度的传统并非偶然,其深层次的原因在于我国有着滋养这种制度的天然土壤。单就诉讼领域中的法官职权主义,尽管理论界存在众多争议,它依然盛行于司法实践当中,本文拟从民事诉讼中举证角色的定位来透析法官依职权调查证据。     

和谐主义诉讼模式：理论基础与制度构建——我国民事诉讼模式转型的基本思路

当事人主义和职权主义诉讼模式不能适应中国转型时期民事纠纷解决的特殊需要。实现民事诉讼模式转型是优化我国民事诉讼制度、完善民事诉讼立法的一项基本作业。我国民事诉讼模式转换的基本方向是构建和谐主义诉讼模式。和谐主义诉讼模式摆脱单纯从诉讼程序上解决纠纷的狭隘视野，将司法诉讼视为一项社会福利制度，着眼于当事人争议的彻底消解，是对传统民事纠纷解决机制和诉讼哲学的双重超越。目前我国构建和谐主义诉讼模式的主要任务是：从和谐主义诉讼理念出发，重新设置民事诉讼基本原则体系；以强化当事人诉讼主体地位为基础，形成科学合理的案件事实探明机制；建立法律观点开示制度，保障法院和当事人就法律问题展开充分的对话和交流。     

从阐明看法官诉讼请求变更告知义务

法官阐明是在当事人主义的诉讼模式下 ,针对辩论主义不足之处 ,法官依据职权进行指导的产物。我国民事诉讼有职权主义的传统 ,当前的审判方式改革则是以当事人主义为方向 ,法官诉讼请求变更告知义务体现了职权干预的特征 ,与审判方式改革的方向不甚一致 ,在司法实践中也会产生诸多问题。应当以阐明代替诉讼请求变更告知义务。     

民事诉讼协同主义:在理想和现实之间

民事诉讼协同主义,是由当事人的真实义务和法院的阐明权(义务)等一系列诉讼义务构成的理想化的诉讼图景。协同主义的基础条件是民事诉讼制度的社会化、福利化,通过适当扩大法院职权,修正、补充辩论主义。协同主义并非是一种独立的诉讼模式,而是协调各方诉讼行为的一种诉讼理想,其作用在于协调法院、当事人和其他诉讼参与人之间的整体关系。在我国构建协同主义,必须兼顾其周边制度要素。     

民事诉讼模式论:争鸣与选择

本文以民事诉讼模式论演变史及主要争鸣点为线索,对民事诉讼模式的界定、类型划分及根据、我国民事诉讼模式的定位及改革走向进行了分析。本文试图历览并辨明学界关于当事人主义与职权主义诉讼模式、马锡五审判方式、协同主义与和谐主义诉讼模式的主张与争鸣,力图正本清源并为正在进行的民事司法改革选择方向提供有价值的资鉴。     

民事诉讼的社会化

党的十九大提出坚持以人民为中心的发展思想,社会化民事诉讼通过"以当事人为中心"及"以当事人为主体"的制度构建能够落实上述理念。社会化民事诉讼制度所强调的公共物品属性,要求民事诉讼向社会提供连续、平等的纠纷解决服务,满足人民在新时代对公平正义的新期待。社会化民事诉讼制度所强调的程序的公共性,则要求法官对诉讼过程进行积极干预,消除当事人间的诉讼势差,保障民事司法的社会共享。在国家与市场关系角度,通过社会化改革,民事诉讼制度可弥合市场经济对于当事人主义诉讼模式以及社会管理对于职权主义诉讼模式的差异性诉求,发挥民事司法在市场经济与社会管理、权利本位与社会本位之间的沟通媒介功能。制度构建中应以诉讼合作原则及实体真实观念为重心,合理安排法院与当事人的诉讼分工,调和个人自由与社会正义的关系,满足新时代人民日益增长的纠纷解决新需求。     

中立与合意——两大法系鉴定证据制度的融合

鉴定证据制度是人类社会发展进步的必然产物 ,是证明方法理性和文明的标志。两大法系的鉴定证据制度围绕公正和效率的主题互相借鉴和学习过程中 ,表现出鉴定启动从“随意”到“令状”、主体选择的“合意”先于“指定”、主体地位从“依附”到“独立”、双方认同的“合意”优于“程序”的趋势。我国目前鉴定证据制度中存在鉴定启动的随意性、鉴定主体地位缺乏应有的中立、双方当事人的举证权利未受到平等对待等一系列问题 ,为实现司法公正与效率的价值目标 ,“中立与合意”是我国鉴定证据制度改革过程中的必然选择     

Artists in an Iron Cage? Artists’ Work in Performing Arts Institutions

This article discusses artists’ work in performing arts institutions in Norway. Many scholars describe Nordic performing arts institutions as slow-moving and heavy “art factories,” where artistic creativity is almost suffocated within bureaucratic “prisons.” The general problem that we raise in the article is whether this pessimistic picture of the relation between state control, market influence, and artistic work is relevant for studying the performing arts today. The study is primarily based upon twenty-seven qualitative interviews with informants in an institutional theatre and a symphony orchestra. We conclude that the actors in the Theatre are trapped—not so much within “a bureaucratic iron cage”—but rather within “an iron cage of charismatic leadership,” while the musicians in the Orchestra enjoy the relative freedom and democratic power of a rather soft bureaucratic organization.     

Psychology and legal change

From its inception, research in “law and psychology” has had an explicitly applied focus. In large part, psychologists have studied legal issues and participated as experts in the legal process in order to improve law and enhance the quality of its justice. This article examines whether and how this can be done. A taxonomy of relationships between the two disciplines is presented which characterizes law and psychology research in terms of its potential for legal change. The use of psychology of effect legal change requires a bringing together of both psychological and legal paradigms. But important differences exist between the styles and methods of reasoning, proff, and justfication in psychology and law. The implications of those differences for the use of psychological data in legal change efforts are developed, as are other aspects of “legalism” that may hinder or impede the effectiveness of psychologically oriented law reform. Finally, limitations of a “factual jurisprudence” that derived from the nature of psychological data are examined.     

“卡迪”模式与刑事公正司法的实现

从“有法必依”到“公正司法”喻示着一种刑事司法观的应然转变:放松了司法者对法律文本本身严格服从的要求,更加强调文本之外的个案公正、合情理等实质合理性依据。这对破解当下具有普遍性的法条主义裁判思维,无疑是一种很好的政策支持和启发。按照罪刑法定原则本意进行合乎逻辑的推演,绝不能推导出“法有明文规定即可定罪处罚”的结论。韦伯关于中国古代司法系“卡迪”模式(即“非理性”)的论断具有一定的事实依据及合理性,这种卡迪模式对实质公正的追求具有目的正当性,不宜将此简单视为“恣意司法”的代名词,其中体现的能动性判断具有司法出罪维度的意义。在目前刑法体系下,法的公正价值与法的安定性并不存在冲突,出罪的理论依据与规范依据完全可以得到恰当融合,但在法适用中需要缓和法的命令性要求。恰当的说理论证是嫁接法的安定性与个案公正的纽带,该过程实际上是将合情理、合目的等价值考量揉入刑法文本的理解、适用及说理论证过程当中。     

What Does It Mean to Control Migration? Soviet Mobility Policies in Comparative Perspective

The migration policies of the former Soviet Union (or USSR) included a virtual abolition of emigration and immigration, an effective ban on private travel abroad, and pervasive bureaucratic controls on internal migration. This article outlines this Soviet package of migration controls and assesses its historical and international distinctiveness through comparison with a liberal state, the United States, and an authoritarian capitalist state, Apartheid South Africa. Soviet limitations on external migration were more restrictive than those of contemporary capitalist states, and Soviet regulation of internal migration was unusual in its direct bureaucratic supervision of the individual. However, Soviet policy did not aim at the suppression of internal migration, but at its complete regularization. The ultimate goal was “regime adherence”: the full integration of the citizen into the Soviet political order. In contrast to the USSR, migration in the contemporary world is marked by “irregularization”: policies that lead to the proliferation of insecure and unauthorized migration.     

Contract Doesn't Live Here any More?

“Parliament intended that Industrial Tribunals should provide a quick and cheap remedy for what it had decided were injustices in the employment sphere. The procedure was to be such that both employers and employees could present their cases without having to go to lawyers for help. Within a few years legalism has started to take over. It must be driven back if possible.”¹     

“四要件论”——质疑犯罪标准引论

20世纪50年代引自苏联的犯罪构成四要件理论,在新刑法确立罪刑法定原则、废除类推制度后,缺陷凸现,已不能适应新形势下司法实践的要求,难以提供犯罪标准.依犯罪标准为目标的犯罪构成理论应坚持法定性和实践性原则,在科学地解释刑法中对犯罪的全部规定基础上,建立符合刑事司法实践内在逻辑、逐级深化的开放式立体体系.重构犯罪标准理论体系,对于落实罪刑法定原则、解决原理论与司法实践脱节的缺陷,满足司法人员定罪需要具有极其重要的意义.     

道与中国法律传统

“道”是先秦道家提出的且在历史上运用十分频繁的一个哲学概念 ,讲求“天人合一” ,强调自律、内控 ,约束人欲的膨胀 ,以维护人与人、人与自然之间的和谐秩序 ,自由思想、权利意识无所由生。法律制度在“道”的指导下 ,形成“道法”传统 ,沿着三个路径变化、发展 :从政治属性上 ,法作为政治的附属 ,走上专制法统的路子 ;从传统法制的内容上 ,走上轻权利重义务的义务本位的路子 ;从法律体系的构织上 ,走上法网宽疏的路子。“道”成为中国古代法的精神。     

A Race for the Regs: Unified Government,Statutory Deadlines,and Federal Agency Rulemaking

Theory suggests that Congress should delegate more policymaking authority to the bureaucracy under unified government, where lawmakers are less worried about the president orchestrating “bureaucratic drift.” Yet, all unified governments come to an end, making broad delegations potentially advantageous to future lawmaking coalitions (“coalitional drift”). We seek to assess how lawmakers simultaneously limit the risk of each of these pitfalls of delegation. Our answer is rooted in Congress’s ability to spur agency rulemaking activity under unified government. Specifically, we expect statutes passed under unified government to require agencies to issue regulations quickly and for enacting coalitions to use oversight tools to influence agency policy choices. Such “proximate oversight” allows coalitions to cement policy decisions before a new election changes the configuration of preferences within Congress and the executive branch. We assess our argument using unique data on both congressional rulemaking deadlines (1995–2014) and the speed with which agencies issue regulations (1997–2014).     

The difference of Chinese legalism and western legalism

This paper analyzes the origin of Chinese legalism, its major propositions and characteristics. It compares the difference between Chinese legalism and other Chinese philosophies including Confucianism, Taoism and Mohism. It also discloses the difference of Chinese legalism and Western legalism in relation with morality. Western legalism defended the rule-of-law but argued against the morality of law. In contrast, Chinese legalism, especially in the early Pre-Qin era, did not separate morality from law. However, the fidelity to law in Chinese legalism was interpreted as the fidelity to the monarch, and thus being different from the Western rule-of-law.