Consent,Communication, and Abandonment

Law and Philosophy - According to the Behavioral View of consent, consent must be expressed in behavior in order to release someone from a duty. By contrast, the Mental View of consent is that...     

Jurisprudence and Communication: Secular and Religious

In considering Van Schooten’s study of the Eric O. case (s.1), I ask whether the different approaches taken by the two different “legal institutions”—the prosecuting authorities on the one hand, the courts on the other—are reflective of different images of warfare (a semantic difference) or of the different images each group holds of its own role (a pragmatic difference). If we consider these two “legal institutions” as distinct semiotic groups (s.2), is there an inevitable “communication deficit” (Van Schooten) between them (and the public) and how does this relate to the Hartian account of such a “crisis in communication” (s.3)? I agree with Van Schooten about the role of underlying images in the construction of legal sense, and relate this to the issue of intuitional judgment, both in and outside the law (s.4). I then turn to comparable issues which arise in my other research area, Jewish law, which reflects quite different ideological premises (s.5), reviewing the original (biblical) conception of the (intuitive) role and functions of judges (s.5A), decision-making, justification and consequentialist ethics in postbiblical Jewish law (s.5B), and the conclusions drawn, not least for the pragmatics of communication, in a recent research study on the wife’s rights in divorce. Paradoxically, I argue (s.5C), that the system rests at base on trust rather than objective truth. But trust, too, is a form of meaning, and susceptible to semiotic analysis. I suggest, in conclusion (s.6), that this is an issue which should be treated more seriously in the theory of secular law and legal communication.     

论行政立法中的沟通与协商

在行政立法中引入沟通与协商机制,既可以在理论层面上夯实行政立法的合法性基础,也可以在现实层面上指导建构行政立法的参与及监督机制。为充分体现行政立法的民主精神,使行政立法中的沟通与协商常态化,须在公开、参与、听证和协商等方面作出进一步的努力。     

Violent Couples: Coping and Communication Skills

Twelve married couples court-ordered to attend a violence reduction treatment program completed self-report measures of anger, social problem-solving skills, and strategies employed for dealing with high-conflict situations. They were subsequently videotaped while discussing 3 different scenarios. Three raters independently coded the videotapes for the use of effective and ineffective communication strategies used by the participants. Aggregate reliability estimates were acceptable. No gender-based differences were found on the self-report measures or the communication skill ratings. When couples discussed low-conflict situations use of effective skills exceeded use of ineffective skills, and when couples discussed high-conflict problems use of ineffective skills exceeded use of effective skills. Implications for treatment of spousal assault are presented.     

司法过程中的商谈与诚信原则

司法过程中的对话沟通是现代司法的特质,是实现司法公正的重要保证之一。诚信原则是现代司法的本质要求。在我国现阶段,通过司法过程的对话沟通树立司法公信力,是实现司法公正,促进司法独立,加快我国民主法治进程、建设和谐社会的重要出路。     

On Some Connections Between Legal Communication and Violence

The first version of this article was written and published in 1989 in Tartu in Russian.¹ As perestroika gathered strength the possibility emerged to take a fresh academic look on concepts which had been dogmatically frozen by “historical Marxism” for many years. One of those laying in the dead end was the Marxist concept of law together with its relation to violence. For a young scholar studying at Tartu University 15 years ago, there was always a possibility to try to apply some ideas and approaches drawn from Yuri Lotman’s articles and lectures. The power of his ideas and its brilliant presentation had already for years fascinated everybody dealing with problems of society and culture in Tartu. The other sources of the present analysis are the ideas about the nature of law and legal communication as they appeared in the 1920s–30s in the works of several Soviet scholars as Eugene Pashukanis and Mikhail Reisner. Both scientists were later condemned and forgotten in the Soviet Union. I also felt very comfortable with the understanding of the nature of law as “language of interaction” expressed and developed by the American lawyer and scholar Lon L. Fuller. The present article focuses only on the logic of communication based on the principle of exchange, reciprocity/contract and mechanism (code) of symbolic equalizations necessary, for achieving such reciprocity. But it is appropriate to point out that in a broader context, contract and reciprocity in society are balanced by different types of principles of human interaction. In this broader understanding, L. Fuller and Y. Lotman are close in their interpretations of cultural interaction and human communication. If we compare Fuller’s article “Two Principles of Human Association”² to Lotman’s “‘Contract’ and ‘Devotion’ as Archetypical Models of Culture”³ we see their approaches are in fact complementary.¹ Kannike, S.H., “O nekotorykh svjazjakh pravovogo obshchenija s nasilijem. Istorija I sovremennost’”, in Tartu Ülikooli Toimetised 850. Studia luridica. Historia et theoria3 (Tartu: Tartu Ülikool, 1989), 76–93² Fuller, L., “Two Principles of Human Association”, in L. Fuller, (ed), The Principles of Human Order(Durham: N.C. Duke University Press, 1981), 67–85³ Lotman, Y.M., ““Dogovor” i “vruchenie sebja” kak arhitipicheskie modeli kul’tury”, in Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 513. Trudy po russkoi I slavjanskoi filologii 332. Literaturovedenije: problemy literaturnoi tipologii I istoricheskoi preemstvennosti(Tartu, 1981), 3–16     

网络传播中的公共治理

互联网与通信技术的迅速发展,极大地变革了传播模式,形成了创新性的网络传播。同传统模式的运行要素相比,网络传播吸纳了大量的传播参与者以及信息和资源,整合了更多复杂的传播目标,模糊了传播路径。网络传播引发了对信息权、参与权和发展权的关注,对公共治理提出了更广泛和深入的参与要求。对此,需要赋予网络传播参与者相应的公共治理主体地位,在各主体间构建完善的信息交流平台,加速实现多主体参与公共治理的本土化,强化各主体对公共治理过程的监督。     

跨文化交往：多元化模式与普世性价值观

不同文化之间的交流有着漫长的历史,跨文化交往是这一发展过程的最高形式.受历史、社会、文化等因素的影响,跨文化交往形成了多种模式.不同文化的价值观对这种多元化模式的形成起到了至关重要的作用,这些模式也反映了各自的价值观.跨文化交往既要推进本文化的发展,维护本文化的价值观,同时还应该在交往过程中努力创造新的、为所有交往参与者所共同接受的价值观,即普世性价值观.这种价值观应该以维护、促进不同文化之间的交往为目的,以和平、平等、协商为主要内容.     

法律文化交往与文化主体意识

整个人类社会发展史其实是一个人类交往史。在所有人类交往活动中,法律文化的交往占有极重要的地位。清末百余年来中国法律的发展与进步,为人类社会法律文化交往提供了一个颇具说明意义的典型示范。但是,在中国法学界,许多问题的认识和讨论长期处于无意识的无我状态,即文化主体意识缺失的状态。这在很大程度上导致了近现代中国法学或中国法学家们,至今尚未能完全自觉地作为一个文化交往主体进入人类法律文化交往。世界法律发展史上,不同法律文化的交往不外乎通过借鉴、继受、移植、整合和融合等五种形态得以实现。这种法律文化交往的实质是实然与应然、地方性与普遍性的关联与转换,是一个地方性向普遍性发展、普遍性由地方性构成的互动过程。在此过程中,没有文化主体意识,就难有文化主体地位,就难以正确认识和解释法律文化交往的各种形态及其一般规律,于是也难以自觉主动地参与文化交往活动。其结果,必然是更难正确认识和把握自身法律制度的建设与发展。     

19世纪之前的中外法律交往

国家的发展离不开相互之间的交往 ,法律的发展也不例外。本文以 1 9世纪前的中外历史为背景 ,阐述中国法律文化的自主成长过程及其对外部世界的影响力。作为四大文明古国之一的中国 ,其文化对世界的影响是广泛的、深远的 ,这从 1 9世纪前欧洲学者对中国法律文化的浓厚研究兴趣中可略见一斑。     

E-Mail Communication and Group Cooperation in Mixed Motive Contexts

Two empirical studies are presented that explore how and why e-mail communication (versus face-to-face communication) influences cooperation in mixed motive group contexts. Results indicate that, relative to those engaging in face-to-face interaction, those who interacted via e-mail were (1) less cooperative and (2) felt more justified in being noncooperative. Feelings of justification mediated the relationship between communication media and the decision to cooperate or not.

Social Justice and Communication: Mill, Marx, and Habermas

This article concerns how one may theorize a social justice of communication. The article argues that the theory of democracy cannot neglect an analysis of communication and that, indeed, a social justice of communication can be identified in the discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas’s “deliberative” theory of democracy. The socio-political analyses of communication in John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx are examined as precursors to Habermas’s position because they are useful for setting off the unique synthesis of the liberal and critical traditions that Habermas develops. Such a social justice of communication shows how the communicative mediation of the public sphere can ameliorate the tension between individual autonomy and the solidarity of group membership by communicatively empowering individuals under conditions of mutual respect and equal dignity.

知识产权传播权论——寻找权利束的“束点”

无论是立法还是学理研究,知识产权的权能表述均存在词不达意、体系混乱等问题,问题的根源在于知识产权支配权观.然而,知识产权对象的"不可占有"与知识产权权利实现的"第三人介入"等特性,决定了知识产权并非支配权.通过历史考察可知,知识产权从诞生之日起便肩负着保护权利人市场利益的使命.市场利益的损益离不开传播行为,因而"传播权"可成为知识产权权利耒的"束点".