The Uses of the Outputs of the International Law Commission in International Adjudication: Subsidiary Means or Artefacts of Rules?

This paper examines the methods which international courts and tribunals (ICTs) employ when using ILC outputs for the purpose of determining rules of international law and their content. Specifically, it identifies common patterns in the ways in which ICTs, first, justify their reliance on ILC outputs and, second, deal with their ambiguities. The paper argues in favour of a consistent methodology for the treatment of ILC outputs in international adjudication. Such a framework is based on the distinction between the identification of the status of a normative proposition contained in these texts and the determination of its content or its interpretation. The identification of the status of a normative proposition requires a critical assessment and reconstruction of the evidence leading up to its development taking also into account that these instruments are not a monolith from the perspective of sources. However, the interpretation of a proposition whose status is uncontested follows a line of inquiry akin to treaty interpretation. This observation has broader implications for the process of interpretation in international law. Specifically, apart from the context of treaty interpretation, international courts or tribunals interpret the normative propositions contained in ILC outputs as a methodological shortcut for the interpretation of rules of customary international law or general principles of law. Conversely, the employment of methods akin to treaty interpretation in this context can constitute evidence of the emergence of common rules, principles, or good practices of interpretation that are also applicable to unwritten international law.

     

美国宪法解释方法论之辨思

自美国宪法诞生至今,关于宪法解释方法存在着各种方法论流派,大致可以把它们概括为解释主义与非解释主义、原意主义与非原意主义、积极主义与消极主义、历史主义、德沃金主义和基础主义等。不同的方法,具有各自不同的理论体系。宪法解释方法论之梳理与辨思,在于揭示其内在法理及差异,为正确解释宪法文本提供理想之途。     

Judicial Review in the European Community: The Environment, Subsidiarity and the Question of Intensity

This paper examines the manner in which the EuropeanCourt of Justice has developed certain principles enunciated inthe Treaty into judicial review standards. It focuses on thelimited intensity of that review in relation to subsidiarity andthe environmental principles. The paper contends that reviewcould be intensified by use of institutional declarations on theprinciples as aids to interpretation.     

宪法解释中学说解释、历史解释和先例解释方法研究

宪法解释方法论是宪法解释的理论核心,也是现代宪法理论体系中极其重要的内容.宪法解释方法论是一个体系,其中包括了学说解释方法、历史解释方法和先例解释方法三种解释方法.学说解释方法强调通过体现在宪法文本中的宪法学说,来发现、理解和创造符合于宪法学说原则、精神的宪法含义;历史解释方法则认为在解释宪法时,应当把宪法的基本原则、精神和价值体系,与社会的发展变化情况有机结合起来;而先例解释方法常适用于单独的文本分析不能充分理解宪法条文时,借助于宪法解释机关过去做出的解释案例,以解释先例为基础来探究答案.这三种解释方法在我国宪法解释的理论与实务中,不仅具有理论研究的意义,而且也有实证的经验基础.     

具体行政行为的解释

具体行政行为的解释是行政行为的一种相对独立的形态,也是法律行为解释的一种类型。行政机关在特定情形下负有解释的义务。对具体行政行为的解释应当遵循合法原则、诚实信用原则和信赖保护原则。行政决定文书的字面含义、行政决定过程中相对人的交涉以及行政惯例和社会习惯,都可以用来解释具体行政行为。对具体行政行为解释的审查,应当坚持表示主义与意思主义相结合的原则,既要尊重行政机关的裁量权力,也要防止其滥用解释权力。     

法律解释规则及其运用研究(上)——法律解释规则的含义与问题意识

自上个世纪90年代以来,中国法律解释学研究走完了初级阶段,学者们对涉及学科发展的基本概念、原则、原理进行了较为清楚的梳理,学术思想进化的脉络也基本厘清,初步完成了基础理论的研究。然而,这并没有满足法治建设以及实务法律人对方法论的需求,因而需要进入细化阶段的研究——把复杂的解释理论转化为简约的解释规则,是法律人对法律方法论的重要期待。简约的法律解释规则代表了"学了容易懂,懂了就能用"的方法。西方法学以及中国律学的经验智慧中,有大量的法律解释规则,需要法律学人甄别、梳理,以方便法律适用。     

诚实信用与权利滥用——我国台湾地区“最高法院”九一年台上字第七五四号判决评析

诚实信用和权利滥用是民事法律的基本原则,一般具有指导及终极裁量的功能。我国台湾地区“最高法院”九一年台上字第七五四号判决确立了诚实信用原则和权利滥用原则在法律适用上的规范功能,对于原则具体裁决功能的发挥起到开创作用。探讨诚实信用原则和权利滥用原则的内容和相互关系,对于法律解释与实践发展具有重要意义。     

Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions.

Previous papers in Science & Justice have described the work of the Case Assessment and Interpretation (CAI) project that has been running for several years within the Forensic Science Service (FSS). The principles of the CAI model, which have developed through casework, are the foundation of a balanced, robust and logical approach to interpretation. The question arises frequently as to what is the most appropriate database that should be available to assist in assigning a value to a given probability. In this paper we present a set of guidelines in the form of flowcharts and explore them within the context of a range of case examples.     

The Legal Basis for Using Principles in WTO Disputes

This article argues that the use of principles in WTO disputeresolution is both necessary and desirable. However, Panelsand the Appellate Body (WTO Tribunals) have often ignored principlesor not clearly identified the legal basis for their use. Thisarticle establishes a framework for the use of principles (inparticular principles of WTO law, principles of customary internationallaw, and general principles of law) in WTO dispute settlement.Broadly, WTO Tribunals can use principles drawn from these categoriesto interpret WTO provisions, based on Article 3.2 of the DSU,and Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT. This follows most directlyfrom a teleological approach to interpretation, but principlesalso feature under subjective and textual approaches to interpretation.WTO Tribunals may also use certain principles in a non-interpretativemanner. Indeed, this may be necessary, particularly to addressprocedural issues. Precisely how a principle may be used dependson its type, content and status.     

Argumentation and Legal Interpretation in the Criminal Decisions of the Polish Supreme Court and the German Federal Court of Justice: A Comparative View

The subject of this study are the argumentation strategies applied by the Polish and German apex courts competent in criminal matters, namely the Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Justice, respectively. The investigation encompasses a total of 200 rulings issued by the criminal panels of these bodies. Particular focus was put on examining which arguments both courts apply to solve interpretation problems, and secondly, how these courts systematize the interpretation process. Methodologically, the examination utilizes, inter alia, the principles of qualitative research, without neglecting the legal dogmatic perspective. A crucial theoretical foundation underlying this study is the distinction between formalistic and substantive legal cultures. The examination reveals that neither the Polish nor the German legal culture is purely formalistic or value-oriented. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Poland shows greater affinity for formalistic arguments, whereas the substantive interpretation methods are more widespread in the judicature of the German Federal Court of Justice. In particular, the Polish Court prefers the linguistic interpretation, whereas the German Court favours the purposive approach.

     

论《联合国宪章》的解释方法问题

以适当的方法对《联合国宪章》做出正确的解释 ,是妥善施行《宪章》的重要前提。本文从理论和实践两个层面 ,深入论析了《宪章》的五种解释方法 ,即文义解释、系统解释、目的解释、历史解释和惯例解释 ,指出五种方法各有利弊长短 ,在选择具体解释方法时 ,应采取“善意解释”的态度 ,所作的解释应有利于实现联合国的宗旨及原则     

合同解释中的司法能动与克制

法官对合同的解释无法脱离其能动性,而主观性的解释须以客观性为目的。当法官在合同解释出现障碍时应恪守两个标准：理性第三人标准和社会公共利益标准。同时,必须对法官的能动性予以下列限制：法官在适用理性第三人标准时,应尽量避免以所谓的＂理性第三人＂之名而作出偏离缔约人真意的解释;法官在合同解释中的自由裁量权要受合同解释规则、合同文本内容、法官职业共同体之规则、公平、正义、诚信等基本原则的限制。     

The Probabilistic Genotyping Software STRmix: Utility and Evidence for its Validity

Forensic DNA interpretation is transitioning from manual interpretation based usually on binary decision‐making toward computer‐based systems that model the probability of the profile given different explanations for it, termed probabilistic genotyping (PG). Decision‐making by laboratories to implement probability‐based interpretation should be based on scientific principles for validity and information that supports its utility, such as criteria to support admissibility. The principles behind STRmix? are outlined in this study and include standard mathematics and modeling of peak heights and variability in those heights. All PG methods generate a likelihood ratio (LR) and require the formulation of propositions. Principles underpinning formulations of propositions include the identification of reasonably assumed contributors. Substantial data have been produced that support precision, error rate, and reliability of PG, and in particular, STRmix?. A current issue is access to the code and quality processes used while coding. There are substantial data that describe the performance, strengths, and limitations of STRmix?, one of the available PG software.     

论刑法解释与解释文本的同步效力——兼论刑法适用的逻辑路径

我国刑法学界有观点认为,依照刑法关于溯及力的规定,能够直接推论出,刑法立法解释和司法解释也必须遵循“从旧兼从轻”的原则,否则便违反罪刑法定原则。这是不符合逻辑的。解决此问题应当遵循逻辑原则。刑法原则、规则的适用范围不应扩张至其逻辑倾向衰竭的场合,在其逻辑倾向强烈且没有衰弱的时候应当受到尊重而不宜被强行扭曲。在我国,刑法立法解释、司法解释和判例均不属于刑法的渊源,不受从旧兼从轻原则的限制。相反,刑法解释具有与解释文本即刑法同步的时间效力。     

论法律解释权配置的历史演变

通过考察大陆法系、英美法系和中华法系代表性国家法律解释权的配置状况,可以发现法律解释权配置演变的规律,即法律解释权的基本概念从模糊走向明确,法律解释权的配置目的从集权走向分权,法律解释权的行使主体从多元走向一元,法律解释权的行使方式从神圣走向世俗。深入分析影响法律解释权配置的内在因素可以看到,政治体制是左右法律解释权配置的总体框架,法律状况是制约法律解释权配置的具体条件,解释原理是支配法律解释权配置的内在规律,历史事件是改变法律解释权配置的直接动力。法律解释权配置演变的规律给人们的启示在于,法律解释权的配置应当遵循法律解释原理和规律,法律解释权的配置应当与法制状况相适应,法律解释权的配置应当结合现代法治精神。     

The invention of Peel's principles: A study of policing ‘textbook’ history

Beyond noting the importance of the Act for Improving the Police in and near the Metropolis (1829) (hereafter referred to as the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829) to the origins of modern policing, law enforcement and policing textbooks commonly include a list identified as Peel's principles. In researching the origins of such lists and their principles, this study found that they are largely the invention of twentieth century textbook authors. From this understanding emerge several considerations for the future of textbook history and of Peel's principles. These include the ongoing importance of incorporating new scholarship and changing historical interpretation into texts. In such an endeavor, however, care should be taken not to impose twentieth or twenty-first century concepts on the past.     

The 2007 Interpretation of the Supreme Court of China on contractual choice of law: Comments and analysis

On July 23, 2007, the Supreme Court of China issued a new judicial interpretation on contractual conflicts. By this Interpretation, the Supreme Court of China publicized contractual conflicts rules. Although a new legal system has been established in resolving conflict of laws in accord with the Law on the Application of Law in Foreign-Related Civil Relations in China (effective on April 1, 2011), there are not many detailed rules concerned on contractual choice of law in this law. As far as contractual conflicts are concerned, the new rules just re-confirm the principles embedded in the 2007 Interpretation. In China contractual conflict disputes still have to largely resort to the 2007 Interpretation.     

原旨主义、活的宪法与复杂状态下的宪法解释?

宪法解释应该遵循原初意义还是回应时代需要,是原旨主义和“活的宪法”之争的焦点所在。在对宪法裁判进行批判与维护的过程中,原意解释方法和非原意解释方法都开始走向基础主义。两种解释方法执着于单一的理念,既无法证明自己比对方更为优秀,也未能对解释实践进行全面的描述。宪法解释是一个相当复杂、语境多元的过程,在不同复杂状况下,法官拥有不同程度的解释裁量权。有鉴于此,任何将宪法解释化约为单一解释哲学的做法,都是不恰当的。     

我国宪法修改原则论析

宪法不能一直处于变动之中,也不能一成不变,解决的办法是为宪法修改确立原则。在对我国宪法的修改过程中逐渐确立起修宪总原则即修宪指导思想和一系列具体修宪原则———即只对非改不可的问题进行修改,可改可不改的问题不作修改,有些问题通过宪法解释予以解决,这些修宪原则对规范宪法修改活动、维护宪法的稳定性和权威性发挥了积极的作用。但修宪的具体原则也存在标准不确定等缺陷。笔者认为,宪法修改应当遵循谨慎性、被动性、谦抑性、程序正当和公民参与等原则。     

An exercise in scientific problem-solving: Illustrating the utility of the principles of the Sydney Declaration

In forensic science, scientific problem-solving is characterized by the recognition of traces as part of iterative reasoning processes to assign meaning to those traces in order to interpret and reconstruct events. Through a set of fundamental principles, the Sydney Declaration presents a foundation of forensic science through the lens of a scientist. The distinction between a scientist and a technician may require clarification—where a prototypical technician follows a prescribed set of ‘standard operating procedures’ and may be limited in the interpretation of the resultant data, the scientist utilizes knowledge, skills, experience and imagination to identify the issue at hand and develop lines of inquiry for testing and interpretation. This case report draws on the Sydney Declaration in order to highlight the importance of learning about events from careful consideration of both obvious and less obvious traces. A case involving the assault of a police officer is examined to illustrate the use of the Principles: the problem originally defined by investigators at the scene and later by prosecutors resulted in incorrect analysis and interpretation of traces, hampering efforts at an accurate reconstruction of events. This exercise serves to demonstrate that in order to engage in scientific problem-solving, it is necessary to apply observation and reasoning in forensic investigations in order to yield an outcome that can be clearly articulated. The overarching goal is to support the drive to improve forensic science practice, education, and research through a case illustrating the value of the principles of the Sydney Declaration.