The case for pain neuroimaging in the courtroom: lessons from deception detection

From an observer''s perspective, pain is a fairly nebulous concept—it is not externally visible, its cause is not obvious, and perceptions of its intensity are mainly subjective. If difficulties in understanding the source and degree of pain are troublesome in contexts requiring social empathy, they are especially problematic in the legal setting. Tort law applies to both acute and chronic pain cases, but the lack of objective measures demands high thresholds of proof. However, recent developments in pain neuroimaging may clarify some of these inherent uncertainties, as studies purport detection of pain on an individual level. In analyzing the scientific and legal barriers of utilizing pain neuroimaging in court, it is prudent to discuss neuroimaging for deception, a topic that has garnered significant controversy due to premature attempts at introduction in the courtroom. Through comparing and contrasting the two applications of neuroimaging to the legal setting, this paper argues that the nature of tort law, the distinct features of pain, and the reduced vulnerability to countermeasures distinguish pain neuroimaging in a promising way. This paper further contends that the mistakes and lessons involving deception detection are essential to consider for pain neuroimaging to have a meaningful future in court.     

我国诉讼监督的一个难点及其破解——析“严禁”语境下的刑讯逼供

我国刑事实体法与程序法均严格禁止刑讯逼供,但在刑事诉讼中刑讯逼供却禁而难止,因刑讯逼供受到查处者为数不多,以致刑法第247条几近虚置。究其原因,一是刑讯逼供合法性的顽固观念妨碍了对刑讯逼供、暴力取证行为的查处;二是对刑讯逼供、暴力取证行为发现不及时;三是对刑讯逼供、暴力取证行为的监督尚有缺位。解决这一问题,首先需要转变司法理念,改善检察监督执法环境;其次,建立顺畅、有效的检察监督机制;再次,对刑讯逼供、暴力取证罪的刑事责任进行立法重构。     

WTO体制内国内法的可诉性问题

在一般国际法理论与实践中,国内法本身可以单独构成国际争端解决程序的诉因。WTO体制内国内法可诉的法律依据是GATT1994第23条、DSU第3.8条以及《WTO协定》第16.4条。在WTO争端解决实践中,专家组和上诉机构的裁决呈现出一个重要的趋势:在美国“301条款”案前,遵循GATT1947时期专家组所确立的“裁量性立法与强制性立法之区分”的习惯性做法;在美国“301条款”案后,不再严格遵循这一习惯性做法。WTO体制内国内法之可诉性问题目前尚没有一个统一、明确的答案。     

行政法上的客观法与主观法

针对如何理解行政法上客观法与主观法的关系,存在三种基本立场。主客观法分离立场认为维护公益的行政法与公民个人权利形成对峙。该立场存在无法关联违法性与侵权性、抱持无视宪法的行政法观等疑问。主客观法结合立场主张从客观法中分出一部分请求权对应行政主体法定义务。该立场存在宪法与行政法平台错位、公益与私益纵向割裂等局限。主客观法统一立场将客观法当作主观法的全部集合,权利由客观法分解得来。该立场是理解行政法主客观法关系的妥当见解。在分配行政与利害调整观念下,特定或不特定复数私人主体间基于行政法律规范的各种利益与不利益冲突、对立并交织而成的利害关系网才是行政实体法律关系的本质,行政法上的实体权利应当由此导出。遵循“利害关系→合法权益”而非“合法权益→利害关系”的逻辑顺序才是判断行政诉讼原告资格的正确方法。     

欧洲人权法院视野中的非法证据排除制度——以"格夫根诉德国案"为例

格夫根案的大审判庭裁决反映出欧洲人权法院在非法证据排除问题上的完整立场,即对通过酷刑获取的任何证据和以非法手段获取的言词证据实行自动排除,对以非人道待遇取得的实物证据根据比例原则决定是否排除,对非法证据的派生实物证据根据利益权衡原则决定是否排除,并以公正审判权作为适用排除规则的重要尺度.在刑事司法准则日益国际化的背景之下,该立场反映了排除规则发展的整体趋势,对我国排除规则的完善有较强的借鉴意义.立足本土法律实践,反思与国际人权基准之间的脱节与落差,将排除规则纳入公正审判权的保障体系,是排除规则发展的大势所趋.     

口供何以中心——“罪从供定”传统及其文化解读

从制度到实践,口供在古代刑事司法中的作用被强调到无以复加的程度:赃证仅仅是获取和推核口供的辅助手段,孤供可以定罪,而无供情况下则通常只能办成悬案或疑案。相应的,作为取供中的合法暴行,最不可妄加的拷掠成了断狱中最不能离开的审讯手段。而有限的可知论、伦理秩序和狱无淹滞的价值诉求、反逻辑的自由心证及非对抗的刑事司法等则为口供主义提供了坚实的文化支撑。     

The law and the public's health: a study of infectious disease law in the United States

Law plays crucial roles in the field of public health, from defining the power and jurisdiction of health agencies, to influencing the social norms that shape individual behavior. Despite its importance, public health law has been neglected. Over a decade ago, the Institute of Medicine issued a report lamenting the state of public health administration, generally, and calling, in particular, for a revision of public health statutes. The Article examines the current state of public health law. To help create the conditions in which people can be healthy, public health law must reflect an understanding of how public health agencies work to promote health, as well as the political and social contexts in which these agencies operate. The authors first discuss three prevailing ways in which the determinants of health are conceptualized, and the political and social problems each model tends to create for public health efforts. The analysis then turns to the core functions of public health, emphasizing how law furthers public health work. The Article reports the results of a fifty-state survey of communicable disease control law, revealing that few states have systematically reformed their laws to reflect contemporary medical and legal developments. The Article concludes with specific guidelines for law reform.     

On the Question of Dutch Courts' Universal Jurisdiction: A Response to Mettraux

In response to Guénaël Mettraux's article regardingthe recent exercise of universal jurisdiction over torture andwar crimes by a Dutch court, the author disputes Mettraux'sreading of these cases on several points. These points includethe legal basis for exercising universal jurisdiction over violationsof Common Article 3 and the criterion of involvement of publicauthorities in the crime of torture.     

较大的市制定的地方性法规应当经批准

立法法第 6 3条是立法法的重要内容之一 ,其依据宪法确立的我国省、市立法权限和体制 ,是对我国地方立法实践的科学总结。认真贯彻实施这条规定的新精神 ,对进一步加强立法工作 ,提高立法质量 ,实现到 2 0 10年形成有中国特色社会主义法律体系的目标 ,必将产生积极、深远的影响。     

Reflections on Waldron’s Archetypes

Jeremy Waldron argued that the government lawyers responsible for the ‘torture memos’ acted unprofessionally by undermining the prohibition on torture. He did so partly on the basis that that the torture prohibition represents a ‘legal archetype’ which cannot be undermined without doing considerable harm to large bodies of law. This paper argues that, however much intuitive appeal Waldron’s archetype-based analysis may have, its force is inherently limited. This is so for two reasons. First, the claim that the torture prohibition is an archetype for non-brutality can only make a meaningful difference to the integrity of the legal order insofar as ‘brutality’ is understood widely. Waldron, though, reads ‘brutality’ in a narrow fashion. Second, and more importantly, the claim that archetypes are uniquely important to legal reasoning and the legal order is deeply problematic.     

中国法学的话语流变考略

改革开放以来,中国法学超越了法律斗争论、工具论和政策论的话语体系,表现出从"革命到改革"、从"左右之争"到"古今中西之争"的演进轨迹。从"公民在法律面前人人平等"、"要法治,不要人治"、"法是阶级性与社会性的统一"、"法要以权利为本位"、"法学需要质变式改革"到法律文化论、法律移植论、本土资源论,三十年话语流变史艰难曲折地从法学之外走向法学之内,最终确立了法治国家话语主导权。在学术理路、发展内涵和思想渊源上,中国法学的话语流变从外在分裂走向内在统一;从"批斗封建文化"到"文化热",走向"以文化作为方法";从"排斥西方"到"接纳西方",走向"反思西方",其中也透射出中国法学乃至国家法治走向成熟的希望。     

论违反海上保险合同中的保证的法律后果”

在我国海上保险实务中 ,保证被称为“保险单特款规定”。我国海上保险法中关于保证的规定源于英国法 ,而且我国的该项法律制度仅存在于我国《海商法》中 ,在我国《保险法》和其他民事法律中均没有涉及。即使在《海商法》中 ,关于保证的规定仅限于第 2 35条这一简单规定。本文主要讨论了我国海上保险法中违反保证的法律后果这一问题 ,并提出了作者的观点。     

信用权之反思与重构

对信用权问题的解答必须回归到对作为客体的信用本身的认识。信用的理论界定和实践表达证明,信用是关于主体客观上的履约能力和主观上的履约品质的综合评价。从评价性人格权客体的外在性出发,信用作为与被评价人相分离的外在之物,作为一种“评价的他者”,与被评价人的人格利益并没有必然联系。正确的逻辑应当是剥离人格与财产,将原本属于名誉的人格利益的部分交还给名誉,信用只剩下财产利益部分。信用所蕴含的财产利益能否成为一项单独的财产权利,视各国法政策要素与法律科学要素间博弈的不同情况结果会有不同,但至少德国民法典第824条的分析表明,该“信用”条款所保护的不是一项特定化的权利,而应归属于一般化财产利益或纯粹经济损失范畴。     

Multijurisdictional practice and the health lawyer: will your practice benefit from the new ABA model rules of professional conduct?

At the end of the twentieth century, bar scholars and regulators were reexamining two traditionally improper aspects of legal practice. The first was the multidisciplinary practice of law, which would permit lawyers to offer accounting and other professional services to their clients, and allow lawyers to share fees with non-lawyers. The second was the multijurisdictional practice of law, which would permit a lawyer licensed in one jurisdiction to practice law in other jurisdiction in which he was not admitted to the bar. Enron and other corporate scandals deflated the movement towards multidisciplinary practice, but the movement to allow multijurisdictional practice bore some limited, yet important, results. This Article argues that the American Bar Association's new Model Rules 5.5 and 8.5, which broaden the ability of healthcare lawyers to practice outside of the states in which they are admitted, are a suitable accommodation to today's mode of practice, while still preserving the states' ability to regulate lawyers and protect clients.     

经上级机关批准的行政行为的被告确定问题再研究——也谈《若干问题解释》第19条规定的适用

由于行政管理的复杂性与行政实体法律法规规定的不完善,批准一词在实践中往往在多种意义上被使用,《若干问题解释》第19条仅以署名与否为标准确定经上级机关批准的行政行为的被告不尽符合行政法理论。科学的做法是,对需要批准的行政行为先从行政职权与法律后果的角度区别所谓的批准究竟是内部审批行为还是行政许可行为,在此基础上分别情形结合署名标准确定被告。     

《民事诉讼法》修改与不予执行仲裁裁决——以北京仲裁委员会为对象的实证分析

目前学界和仲裁界对《民事诉讼法》第213条规定的不予执行仲裁裁决的条件是否修改及怎样修改存在较大争议。为了给相关讨论提供有益素材,有必要取得来自仲裁及司法实践的第一手资料并作实证性的考察。通过对北京仲裁委员会1995-2010年仲裁裁决被不予执行的裁定进行分析发现,影响不予执行的因素是多元的。从实务的视角出发,至少应把第213条第(四)款牵涉事实认定的事由统一到《仲裁法》第58条作为撤销仲裁裁决事由的"伪造或隐瞒证据"的规定上去。     

法理:法实践的正当性理由

法理是由人的理性认识所凝练、证成法实践的正当性理由。法理是一个实践性概念,它生成于、作用于、发展于法实践,面向法实践绽放理论生命、成就学术体系、彰显话语魅力,深入法实践充实法律思维、供养法治思维、锤炼法理思维。法理概念在数千年中华法治文明发展进程中萌生、流淌、跃动,在新时代全面依法治国、推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的征程中苏醒、焕发、升腾,是法理复兴之路与良法善治之景的和韵,是东方文明之光与马克思主义真理之光的交辉。     

行政投诉案件中原告资格的本土逻辑与实践反思

举报投诉人原告资格问题是行政诉讼理论和实践争议的焦点。《行诉解释》第12条第5项认可了投诉人的原告资格,但在理论和实践中仍存在较大的争议,需要梳理并回应。就保护规范理论而言,在实体法和程序法没有规定主观公权利的前提下,诉讼法及其司法解释也可以赋予投诉人原告资格,并可以据此推导出与原告资格相对应的主观公权利;就保护必要性而言,第5项中合法权益的规范功能能够替代保护必要性的适用;就投诉人的定位而言,第5项与司法实践存在冲突,建议将第5项对投诉人的定位由其他利害关系人改为行政相对人。     

The Powers of Application

This paper studies the formality of law and legal reasoning. It argues that, though the law (and its application) is indeed formal in that it does not take into account a significant number of considerations that should in principle be relevant for an all–things–considered decision, this is not to be explained on the basis of some ontology of rules (i.e., rules as exclusionary reasons), but upon the nature of legal discourse when viewed as a social practice. How the law is applied to particular cases, when substantive considerations not referred to by the rules are important enough to defeat their application to the case and questions of this kind are not answered by the legal material (which includes or might include rules, principles etc.), but by beliefs that underlie legal practice, beliefs about the world and its relation to human beings and society. Insofar as these beliefs have impact upon practices we recognise as legal they are termed "images of law." Legal reasoning cannot be understood without paying due attention to the nature and evolution of images of law.