Attitude and the normativity of law

Though legal positivism remains popular, HLA Hart’s version has fallen somewhat by the wayside. This is because, according to many, the central task of a theory of law is to explain the so-called ‘normativity of law’. Hart’s theory, it is thought, is not up to the task. Some have suggested modifying the theory accordingly. This paper argues that both Hart’s theory and the normativity of law have been misunderstood. First, a popular modification of Hart’s theory is considered and rejected. It stems from a misunderstanding of Hart and his project. Second, a new understanding of the mysterious but often-mentioned ‘normativity of law’ is presented. Once we have dispelled some misunderstandings of Hart’s view and clarified the sense in which law is supposed to be normative, we see that Hart’s view, unmodified, is well suited to the task of explaining law’s normativity.     

Pirates,prisoners, and preliterates: anarchic context and the private enforcement of law

This paper investigates institutions that develop to strengthen or expand the discipline of continuous dealings as a mechanism for privately enforcing law. I consider three such institutions in three different anarchic contexts: that of Caribbean pirates; that of drug-dealing gangs and prison inmates; and that of preliterate tribesmen. These cases highlight several ways in which different anarchic contexts give rise to different private law enforcement institutions. The varieties of private law enforcement institutions that emerge in different anarchic contexts reflect the particular problem situations that persons who rely on those institutions confront in their attempts to protect property rights without government.     

论行政法上的比例原则

一、问题的提出 近日拜读苏力先生的<送法下乡--中国基层司法制度研究>一书,见其中介绍了一个警察使用枪支的案件,大概的案情是,王某(警察)与派出所其他干警按照上级统一"严打"部署,在午夜上路设卡检查摩托车情况.遇见三位即将毕业的大学生饮酒后驾驶一辆摩托车归来,拒绝停车检查,连闯两道检查线,直冲派出所所长把守的第三道检查线.     

Alive and well: the good faith principle in Turkish contract law

Good faith is a principle prominent in civil law countries but less so in common law countries, and which allows courts to deviate from black letter law. It provides them with flexibility to change the outcome of a deductive legal decision if they regard it as absurd. The principle of good faith thus empowers the judiciary to deviate. It can be used for an indefinite number of cases and might lead to almost all conceivable legal consequences. For instance, the judge can invalidate the contract, change the price, suspend or change a clause in the contract, or grant injunctive relief, compensation of damages, the disgorgement of profits or a removal claim. We argue that if the principle of good faith is used to develop contract law into an instrument for redistributing wealth in favor of poor parties, this can destroy the concept of contract as a social mechanism for generating mutual gains for parties, which might lead to unwanted economic consequences in terms of efficiency losses. We argue that the principle of good faith must be carefully and reluctantly used to reconstruct the fully specified contract and that well-informed judges, who understand the factual environment of a contract well should ask how fair bur self-interested parties would have allocated the risk in a pre-contractual situation. If the courts restrict the application of the good faith principle to these functions, this provides elasticity that otherwise would not exist if courts would strictly use the rules laid down in black letter law. Moreover, it saves transactions costs and is therefore in line with economic reasoning. We look at the most important Turkish cases and find that the Turkish Supreme Court following Continental European doctrines of good faith actually uses this principle to curb opportunistic behavior of parties and not to achieve redistribution from the rich to the poor by way of interfering into contract law.     

论民法的基本原理

我国即将制定民法典,在制定民法典时,应坚持什么样的立法指导思想?即以什么作为民法学体系 所体现的精神?这就要研究什么是民法的基本原理。关于这一点,学术界研究甚少,往往更多的关注具体的民法规范。笔者在此想谈一下自己对“民法的基本原理”这一宏观问题的认识。通过对民法的性质、总则及具体民事制度的分析,说明“意思自治”成为民法基本原理的必然。     

试论保险法的基本原则

保险法基本原则的功能在于指导保险法律制度的具体设计,它要与保险活动自身特点相适应.在这个意义上说,保险法的基本原则是保险活动特点的产物.本文意在通过考察保险活动的特点来分析保险法的基本原则.     

Reviewing the exclusionary principle in English contract law

The exclusionary principle in English contract law is a long established but controversial rule of contractual interpretation. This article considers the jurisprudential origins of the principle and critically analyses judicial justification of the principle. This article also puts forward a case for how the principle can be reformed in order to introduce greater fairness within the process of contractual interpretation.     

对下午法律保留原则的思考

法律保留是行政法的一个基本原则,是依法行政和建立“法治国家”的基本要求。但该原则在我国行政法领域还没有受到应有的重视,笔者在此对法律保留中“法律”的涵义、产生基础、界定标准、现状及改进的措施问题等作初步探析,以期引起理论界和实践界对该原则的重视。     

论反垄断法语境下的市场界定

对市场的界定是进行并购反垄断审查的重要前提.需求替代性和供给替代性是界定相关市场的理论基础.在此基础上,产品功能界定法和假定的垄断者测试是界定相关市场的具体方法.由于假定的垄断者测试有大量的经济数据作支撑,因此应当作为界定相关市场的主要方法.     

破产法的私法精神缺失及原因分析

我国现行破产法的主要缺陷体现在指导思想的错位,破产法包容了过多的公法职能。在破产还债的基础上,破产法还要实现国有企业改革、企业职工安置等社会职能,背离了破产法的本质,破产法自身的私法精神缺失。     

The law and economics of supranationalism: the European Union and the subsidiarity principle in collective action perspective

This article, prepared for an issue devoted to the work of Judge Richard A. Posner, considers the implications of law and economics for the structure of supranational organizations, with particular attention to the application of collective action theory to the relationships among states in the EU. After discussing the connections between this approach and Judge Posner’s work, the article describes collective action theory and its implications for our understanding of the state and of relationships among states. From this perspective, supranational organizations such as the EU can be understood as institutional structures that facilitate collective action among states by reducing the transactions and enforcement costs of making and implementing collective decisions. At the same time, the delegation of authority to supranational institutions creates agency costs for states and their peoples because the interests of the state and its people diverge from the interests of the collective in some instances. Viewed in this perspective, the institutional structure of the EU—like that of other supranational organizations or federal nation states—reflects an effort to strike a balance between collective decision making and local control so as to maximize the collective gains and minimize the resulting agency costs. Understood in these terms, various features of the EU’s institutional design make sense. The ordinary legislative process permits the EU to act without the unanimous consent of member states, thus reducing transactions costs in those areas where collective action is necessary, particularly in relation to the creation and regulation of the internal market. The EU reduces enforcement costs through principles of direct applicability or effects and the supremacy of EU law, which are effective legal restraints in states governed by the rule of law. The institutional structure of the EU also incorporates a representative and deliberative process for collective action that helps control the resulting agency costs for member states and their peoples through supermajority and co-decisional requirements. The collective action perspective also illuminates the function of the subsidiarity principle and the enhanced role of national parliaments in its enforcement.     

论行政许可法中信赖利益保护原则

信赖保护原则是行政许可法新确立的一项突破性原则,对于推进诚信政府建设,依法规范行政许可行为和保护行政相对人的合法利益,都具有重要意义。本文通过对行政许可中信赖利益保护原则的涵义、构成要件、理论基础的探究,分析了我国行政许可法对信赖利益保护原则的规定及缺失,并提出了完善的方向性建议。