如何让法律解释趋同

已经存在的法律与案件事实有着天然的脱节关系，这让法律解释变得必然。本文主要探讨法官的法律解释，分析了法律解释有着多种可能，存在多样结果的原因，进而提出法律解释应该向着相同的方向发展，既是“趋同”，要让判决变得可预测，变得让人信服。     

论我国刑事诉讼客体内容的确定——案件事实及其法律评价的双重确定

作为刑事诉讼基本要素之一的刑事诉讼客体理论内容系统庞杂,但我国理论界对刑事诉讼客体的内容素有争论,时至今日也并未达成一致,这阻滞着公诉变更、法院变更罪名、＂一事不再理＂等问题的解决。应结合刑法与刑事诉讼法规范的目的,并以刑事实体法与刑事程序法为双重基础,确立包含实体内容与程序内容在内的案件事实、对案件事实的法律评价为刑事诉讼客体的内容。     

司法裁判中法律事实与法律规范的关系

目前,学界关于司法裁判中法律事实与法律规范关系的论述,可以概括为以下四种推论关系、归类与涵摄关系、等置关系、评价关系。这四种方法在司法判决中各有其作用,但是学者们往往各执一端,将四者割裂开来。而实际上,逻辑推论关系确保了推理形式的正确性,而价值评价则保障了推理的实质合理性,归类与涵摄关系重点关注的是法律推理大小前提如何结合的问题,而等置关系似乎可以作为衡量归类或涵摄是否妥当的一个检测器。司法裁判中将四者有机结合起来,才能保证判决的合法性。     

解释学与法律解释

本文试从解释学视角，考察司法过程中的法律解释问题。通过这一考察，笔者试图证明，传统解释学与法律解释理论由于未能准确把握法律解释的实质，在实践领域必然遇到各种困难。司法过程中关于法律规则与法律事实的解释，都包含着现代解释学的“前见”、“问答逻辑”等特征，判例与判例法中则包含着更为复杂的解释问题。当代中国法律实践必须及时更新法律解释观，才能实现法律制度的有效率创新和法律活动的民主化、科学化。     

事实婚姻考察——兼论结婚仪式的现代法律价值

《婚姻法》采行单一登记婚主义从而否定仪式婚传统的立法形成了大量的事实婚姻。为了解决事实婚姻问题，我国先后制定了立法指导思想并不相同甚至非常矛盾的行政规章和司法解释。为了保证社会的高度同质，解放后国家开展了若干社会改造运动，结婚仪式在很长的时间里被视为需要移风易俗的对象。在赞成将婚姻行政登记作为主要的结婚登记制度并继续完善与巩固的同时，立法也应当有条件地承认结婚仪式的正当性和合法性。     

解释论、语用学和法律事实的合理性标准

法律事实是人们在诉讼过程中对客体事实的认识结果 ,这一认识开始于个别主体对客体事实的经验和感受。当经验者用言语方式表达其对客体事实的经验和感受时 ,客体事实便转换成语言流传物。诉讼过程就是各方主体以言语方式表达事实主张 ,以寻求主体间的共同理解和解释 ,从而建构法律事实的过程。在这一过程中 ,制度性语境和规则成为主体间对话和评价的依据 ,在此基础上形成的共识便成为法律事实合理性的来源。真实性是法律事实形成的条件 ,而共识性应是法律事实的合理性标准。这就要求诉讼制度能够体现交往合理性 ,并要求诉讼程序尽可能保障交往合理性的兑现 ,以期有效地达至共识性真理标准。     

法律解释及其在法律适用中的作用

法律适用和法律解释的概念有广义与狭义之分。国外法理学者对法律适用过程的分析有助于对法律适用和法律解释二者关系的理解。探讨法律适用与法律解释的关系、明确法律解释的价值对有效弥合共性法律与个性案件之间的罅隙、保证法官正确适用法律、实现司法裁判法律效果与社会效果的双赢具有重要意义。     

法律事实辨析

法律事实是指在法定的程序空间内,由多方诉讼主体依据既定的规则建构起来的一幅案件事实图景,它是某种法律裁决据以作出的事实依据。法律事实是经过程序法规范过滤了的事实,是依据证据规则而剪裁出来的事实,是主体描绘出来的事实,它具有确定性和开放性的特点。司法活动的目的应该从发现事实真相转向确保法律事实形成过程的正当性与合法性。理论研究也应该由对于制度的解构或建构的研究转向针对具体的司法过程的研究,从而实现由关注静态的法律到关注法律的动态运作过程的转变。     

解释法律与法律解释

解释法律和法律解释是两个完全不同的概念。解释法律是要探求法律这一社会现象的根本性问题 ,是需要用哲学方法来说明法律的过程 ,因而是一个哲学命题 ;法律解释所针对的是法律的具体规定或与法律相关的具体事实 ,因而是一个法学命题。     

判例法与法解释--创建我国判例制度的探讨

本文阐述了判例的概念,论证了判例法是大陆法系的第二法源,是成文法必要的解释与补充,分析了我国最高人民法院公报公布案例形成了中国判例的雏形,有些案例已具判例性质,但并未形成真正的判例制度.本文认为,判例法产生的原因是由法官法解释的必要性决定的,而法官法解释的必要性又是由概念法学的衰落与自由法学的兴起、法解释目标的客观性、法解释自身的性质、现代市民社会的存在与发展、诉讼类型的变化等原因所决定.本文提出了进行审判制度改革、在最高人民法院设立判例委员会、编篡判例法律汇编等建议.     

Justifying law: An explanation of the deep structure of American law

Conclusion Charles Darwin argued that human beings are what happen whenphysical laws act upon a planet with the characteristics that earthhad five billion years ago. Similarly, I have argued that theprimacy of individual will is what eventually happens when asociety allocates and limits coercion based upon rights. From timeto time particular visions of the good or the right dominate publicbehavior, but they are eventually enframed by rights — the authoritative claim of each person to respect.I have argued that the propositional structure of American law—the laws themselves — can be seen to be a logically consistentsystem of propositions stemming from the axiom that the will ofeach person is worthy of respect. This is an explanatory, not anormative, proposition. The axiom was not put there by anyoneand the law derived from it, any more than the human brian wasput there and the theory of relativity derived from it. The axiomcame to be embodied in k because of a fact — the single universalcharacteristic of human beings that is relevant to the question ofarranging coercion is individual will — and a process — the right ofeach person to demand a justification for coercion used upon him.Since will is universal to human beings, this would suggest thatany rights-based legal system would evince a general structuresimilar to our own. Particularities of national culture, naturalresources, population density, and so on would produce a verydifferent liberty frontier from the one facing this country andhence, different laws. But the general structure of law — the relationship between principle and policy decision, the role of thebasic rights, and so on — should be similar. This similarity shouldprovide a common basis for cooperation between states, transcending particularities of economic structure, political structure and ideology. We have seen that a very broad range ofeconomic and political institutions may be justified. The essential difference between states lies not in the different ways that theyarrange institutions but in the different ways that they justifythem. Those that justify them to people as persons are similar.Those that justify them by conformity to a design are different.The theory set out here is not a design. It is an explanation. Onevirtue of explanations is that they draw forth other explanations.More importantly, they offer perspective — they tell us what weare up to. As the social relations which law must rationalizebecome ever more complex, perspective becomes ever more necessary. The simple laws have already been written. The connectionbetween the doctrine of consideration and the first principle isobvious. The connection between the hard look doctrine ofreviewing administrative agencies and the second principle isnowhere near so obvious (though it is a lovely example of thejudicial process enframing the realm of uncertainty). The morecomplex and artificial the institution, the poorer the guidance ofintuition and the more necessary are conscious guides to decision.Justification comes easy to printers. Most of them don't knowwhy a page of print that has straight margines left and right isjustified. They don't need to know, for the idea has immediateintuitive appeal; it is easy to accept and to remember, and, onceremembered, it is an effective guide to behavior. It is easy to seethat this line of print is not justified and to do somethingabout it. It is not so easy to tell whether the hard look doctrine orthe enforcement of a surrogate motherhood contract sits fairly on itspage. Justification of law requires an understanding of thecriterion against which it is being done. There is an intuitive core— a sense — to any act of judgment, but that core can be illuminated and developed by an understanding of the framework withinwhich it operates.     

论法解释的情理性与客观性

各种法律文本的解释方法都可归结为情理性解释 ,法解释者的解释只有采纳了情理性的论据时才具有说服力。法解释过程具有主观性 ,但结论却是法解释者遵循法解释程序原则的主观性判断客观化的产物 ,具有客观性。所以 ,情理性解释是主观性与客观性的统一。     

司法中法律解释的思维过程探析--就审判利格斯诉帕尔默案与德沃金的对话

本文通过分析司法中法律解释的思维过程 ,对法律的确定性、司法的自主性以及法律方法的纯粹性提出质疑。疑难案件的判决结果并不来自于法律内部 ,对不同判决方案预测其社会效果并权衡其利弊得失是隐含于法律解释中的思维过程 ,但正是这个隐含的思维过程决定了疑难案件应当如何判决、法律应当如何解释。     

A fresh start II: Issues and challenges of education law in South Africa

In this second part of a two-part article some issues and challenges of education law in South Africa are discussed. With reference to recent case law it is shown that an educational jurisprudence is developing, after which the issues of academic freedom and the autonomy of universities are analysed within the framework of the Constitution and other legislation affecting universities. The constitutional distribution of powers between the national and provincial governments, and the effect on education of the fact that both spheres of government have legislative powers over education, are discussed at some length. The view is taken that outstanding issues in this regard may have to be clarified by the intervention of the courts. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

社区法治在法治进程中的价值

社区法治既是国家法治建设全局中的重要领域,又是能够催生和促进法治的新生社会空间,社区产生发展的历史背景、社区自身的特点属性、以及社区法治化社会实践,都带有法治社会建设"试验田"、"示范区"和"战略区"的特征和功能。     

竞争诉讼机制研究——经济法的程序价值视角

竞争冲突因其反市场、反社会的本质 ,必须加以规制。竞争诉讼机制的中立性、独立性及自我抑制性等特点 ,在抑制和治理竞争冲突方面发挥着有别于行政评价机制的独特功效。同时 ,因其在利益、主体、成本上的基本属性 ,在竞争诉讼长期缺位的中国 ,应及早构建起以个人和国家为控诉主体、以经济审判庭为主审机构的诉讼格局 ,并在个人起诉、撤诉、自由和解等方面做出自己的程序安排。     

商事仲裁在法价值意义上的探讨

商事仲裁作为解决争议的一种救济方式,相对于调解、诉讼,有其独特的优势所在,这也是仲裁在法价值意义上值得探讨之处。本论文即从商事仲裁的概念、范围引申出仲裁与调解、诉讼的异同比较,然后说明仲裁特有的优势,最后探讨仲裁在法价值上的意义,并从中体现仲裁最终达到正义、公平的法的价值的目的。