The Limits of Digital Interpretation: Semantic Versus Syntactic Connectedness

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - The concept of reasonability is key in Umberto Eco’s interpretive semiotics, where it...     

论刑法解释中的词义分析法

词义解释是刑法解释的基础,只有理解了词义才能掌握语篇的意义,而词义只有在语篇中才能得到正确理解。词义分析法包括语素分析法、多义词辨析法和同义词分析法。语素分析法是词义解释的基础,进行语素分析时,应正确确定构词方式,搞清语素义和词义的关系。辨析多义词时应搞清楚多义词的意义,区别其语文意义和规范意义,并在上下文和语境中确定多义词不同的规范意义。辨析同义词的方法有训诂法、替换法和义素分析法。每种方法都有其价值和局限性,应该把各种方法结合起来。     

Lesser-Evil Justifications: A Reply to Frowe

Sometimes one can prevent harm only by contravening rights. If the harm one can prevent is great enough, compared to the stringency of the opposing rights, then one has a lesser-evil justification to contravene the rights. Non-consequentialist orthodoxy holds that, most of the time, lesser-evil justifications add to agents’ permissible options without taking any away. Helen Frowe rejects this view. She claims that, almost always, agents must act on their lesser-evil justifications. Our primary task is to refute Frowe’s flagship argument. Secondarily, it is to sketch a positive case for nonconsequentialist orthodoxy.

     

司法解释批复四题

司法解释批复是最高人民法院对高级人民法院、解放军军事法院就审判工作中具体应用法律问题的请示所作的答复。本文通过对司法解释批复历史和现状的考察 ,认为由于其建立在案件请示制度基础之上 ,脱离了诉讼程序约束 ,脱离了法定的审判组织 ,脱离了个案案情 ,名不符实。在现行体制下 ,亟待采取有效措施提高司法解释批复的质量。但司法解释批复是加剧司法随意性的重要因素 ,最终必须彻底废止     

近代中国宪政缩影——辛亥百年解读云南护国运动

1908年清末立宪至今,中国宪政已有百年历史。宪政从西方传来之时,正值中华民族生死存亡之际,反帝救亡成为当时的主旋律。宪政之于近代中国也因此被赋予了双重目标,即追求民主政治与追求民族独立的目标联系在一起,且后者优于前者。近代宪政不可避免地被当作功利性的手段,其自身的价值内涵却被忽略了。     

Distance,Determinacy and the Duty to Aid: A Reply to Kamm

Law and Philosophy -     

A Reply to Five Friends

For an academic, there is no greater reward than having one's scholarship taken seriously. The five distinguished scholars who have contributed to this symposium on The Force of Law (Schauer 2015 ) have done just that, with varying degrees of agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism. But even critical commentary, and perhaps especially critical commentary, is evidence of serious engagement. More importantly, the commentaries contained here have advanced our understanding of law in valuable ways. I respond to each in this reply, but with full acknowledgment that my responses cannot do justice to the full breadth of their contributions and challenges. My hope is not that I will persuade readers that I am correct and my critics mistaken, but rather that the reader who absorbs both the challenges and my response will come away with a greater understanding of the issues that The Force of Law seeks to place on the agenda of contemporary jurisprudence.     

Defending the sanctity of life principle: a reply to John Keown

This article is a response to Professor John Keown's criticism of my article "Finding a Way Through the Ethical and Legal Maze: Withdrawal of Medical Treatment and Euthanasia" (2005) 13(3) Medical Law Review 357. The article takes up and responds to a number of criticisms raised by Keown in an attempt to further the debate concerning the moral and legal status of withdrawing life-sustaining measures, its distinction from euthanasia, and the implications of the lawfulness of withdrawal for the principle of the sanctity of life.     

A Political Theory of Blackmail: A Reply to Professor Dripps

This essay was originally presented at the Rutgers Institute for Law and Philosophy as part of the Symposium on The Evolution of Criminal Law Theory. It is a Reply to Professor Donald Dripps’ politically-based justification for blackmail’s prohibition. Under Dripps’ account, by exacting payment from the victim blackmail is an impermissible form of private punishment that usurps the state’s public monopoly on law enforcement. This essay demonstrates that Dripps’ account is either under-inclusive or over-inclusive or both. Dripps’ account is applied to a number of the standard blackmail scenarios by which theories of blackmail are typically assessed. Dripps’ account is under-inclusive by failing to treat as blackmail Victim-Welcomed Blackmail, Non-Monetary Blackmail, Rebuffed Blackmail, and Non-Informational Blackmail which the law considers as blackmail. And it is over-inclusive by treating as blackmail Victim-Initiated Exchange and Unconditional Disclosure which the law does not recognize as blackmail.     

Defending coase against false charges: A comment on block

This note suggests that Coase's The Problem of Social Cost has been read and interpreted too broadly to apply to all aspects of law. Drawing from Coase's own work, I show that Coase was narrowly focused on the economic analysis of negative externalities. This understanding of the paper precludes it from being used as a justification for the broad redistribution of property rights for the purpose of wealth maximization. This understanding of Coase's paper also defends his work against charges from those who object to making the determination of property rights secondary to the maximization of wealth.