In Defense of the Practice Theory

Hart proposed that law is made possible by the practice among legal officials of observing conventional social rules, the most important being rules of recognition. This view has been dubbed the practice theory, and it has been attacked by many legal theorists. This paper argues that many criticisms of the practice theory fail because they misunderstand the nature of the organizational challenge to which rules of recognition are the solution. The challenge of constituting a legal system is essentially the challenge of constituting a group agent, and when viewed through Pettit’s account of group agency, the practice theory can easily be defended.     

In Defense of Class Struggle

Critical Criminology - In his article, “In Defense of Resistance,” Ferrell (2019) argues for the importance and centrality of the study of everyday and emergent acts of resistance to...     

In Defense of Criminal Possession

Criminal law casebooks and treatises frequently mention the possibility that criminal liability for possession is inconsistent with the Voluntary Act Requirement, which limits criminal liability to that which includes an act or an omission. This paper explains why criminal liability for possession is compatible with the Voluntary Act Requirement despite the fact that possession is a status. To make good on this claim, the paper (1) defends the Voluntary Act Requirement, (2) offers an account of the nature of omissions of the kind that need be included in that for which criminal liability is imposed in the absence of a voluntary act, and (3) argues that possession is a status that is constituted in part by an omission of this sort. The result is that to hold people criminally liable for possession is to hold them criminally liable both for a status and for an omission, an omission that is part of what it is to have that status. The paper also distinguishes possession from vagrancy, which is not a proper object of criminal liability, precisely because of constraints placed by the Voluntary Act Requirement. And the paper argues that possession incident to dispossession is not a proper object of criminal liability because it does not involve an omission of the kind that other forms of possession involve.     

论撤销权

我国新合同法设立了撤销权制度 ,这在我国是一项新的法律制度。本文仅就其性质 ,成立要件、法律效力予以阐述。     

In Defense of the Responsibility to Protect: A Response to Weissman

This article defends the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine (adopted by the United Nations in 2005) against critiques by Fabrice Weissman in this journal, and against similar criticisms of humanitarian intervention and human rights norms made by postmodern thinkers in the Nietzschean tradition, such as Alain Badiou and Anne Orford. I argue against Weissman that R2P can be effective in stopping or preventing mass atrocities, and in particular that opposition to military intervention in Syria during the 2013 debates was a terrible mistake. Moreover, the moral ground for humanitarian aid efforts is the same as the basis for forceful rescue from mass slaughter, ethnic cleansing, and persecution (when other conditions of just war can be met). Weissman's critiques misinterpret just war theory on key points and rely on inflated rhetorical strategies inspired by extreme forms of cultural and moral relativism that are intellectually bankrupt—both in blaming “Western imperialism” for most crimes against humanity committed by tyrants, and in leaving hundreds of thousands without the only protection that could prevent their murder and exile. These extreme positions and the strained rhetorical devices used to defend them do not deserve the wide respect they command in some parts of academia.     

提高我国刑事辩护质量的另一条路径——再论刑事辩护准入制度的建立

建立刑事辩护准入制度是提高我国刑事辩护质量的另一条现实路径。在现实国情允许的情况下,我国应从死刑案件开始,分步骤、分阶段地设立刑事辩护的准入门槛,同时设置相应的监督、惩戒以及退出机制,为刑事辩护准入制度的实施营造良好的制度环境。     

In Defense of the Standard Picture: Overcoming Death by a Thousand Cuts

In a previous article, I defended the standard picture of law (or SP), so labeled by its foremost critic, Mark Greenberg. In that article, I addressed Greenberg's root-and-branch critique of the SP and, to a much lesser extent, a related critique by Scott Hershovitz. But the Greenberg and Hershovitz frontal attacks on the SP are not its only threats. Some theorists, while not attacking the SP directly, give accounts of law that the SP cannot accommodate. Those theorists will be challenged here, because if they are correct, the SP is not a tenable account of law.     

In Defense of Permissible Killing: A Response to Two Critics

Law and Philosophy -     

Consequences Matter More: In Defense of Instrumentalism on Private Versus Public Prisons

Alon Harel wants to show that punishment is a kind of symbolic expression that, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, can only be performed by governmental agents. Contrary to Harel, I argue private agents can in fact realize those features he argues only public agents can realize. I also argue that, even if he were right that only public guards and wardens can punish, it’s unclear why we would have an all-things-considered rather than merely a pro tanto/prima facie duty to punish. An instrumentalist can grant Harel that only state employees can punish, but still decide, on instrumental grounds, to reject public punishment in favor of private “schpunishment.”     

In Defense of Patient-Centered Theories of Deontology: A Response to Liao and Barry

S. Matthew Liao and Christian Barry argue that the patient-centered approach to deontology that I have developed—the restricting claims principle (RCP)—‘is beset with problems.’ They think that it cannot correctly handle cases in which a potential victim sits in the path of an agent doing what she needs to do for some greater good, or in which a person’s property is used to benefit others and harm her. They argue that cases in which an agent does what would be permissible but acts on a malicious reason show that agent intentions, rather than patientclaims, are fundamental to deontology. And they claim that the RCP presupposes the means principle in a way that shows that it is not really offering anything new. I argue here that all of these charges are mistaken. Doing so allows me to offer important refinements to the RCP, to highlight two common mistakes in reasoning about cases, and to set challenges for agentcentered approaches to deontology.

     

建立刑事辩护准人制度提高刑事辩护质量——“中国刑事辩护30年暨刑事辩护准入材度”国际研讨会综述

2008年11月1日-2日,由中国社会科学院法学所、国际司法桥梁与中国行为法学会律师执业行为研究会共同主办的“中国刑事辩护30年暨刑事辩护准入制度”国际研讨会在北京昆泰大酒店成功举办。来自全国人大内务司法委员会、法律工作委员会、最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、司法部、全国律师协会、北京市律师协会以及山东、四川、陕西、河北等公、检、法、司、律师事务所和法律援助中心的实务界人士,专家70余人参加了此次会议的研讨。     

建立刑事辩护准入制度实现刑事辩护专业化——兼与张青松律师商榷

一、问题的提出 从比较法考察的视角，辩护权是一项被普遍承认的权利。尽管世界各国的政治体制、社会制度、意识形态、文化传统不同，但是，被指控人有权获得辩护却是公认的法律原则，并且得到国际社会的高度认同。从历史考察的视角，在固属自然权利之辩护权中，律师辩护权是一项能将被指控人的辩护权真正还原为一种现实权利的派生权利，所以，“刑事诉讼的历史就是扩大辩护权的历史”。