论案例指导制度的法律定位

将案例指导制度定位为法律适用机制，就是意图在现行的司法体制框架里，通过指导性案例具体化、细化法律原则，使其可以像法律规范（规则）那样可以发挥裁判准则、行为规则以及（裁判结论的）评价准则的功能，以恰当、公正地处理纠纷。但这一定位没有看到以成文的制定法为核心，根据依法裁判原理构建起来的现行司法制度、诉讼程序制度的特点，没有看到指导性案例法律效力的特点，以及依法律规则裁判与依指导性案例（法律原则）裁判所要求的不同的裁判方式和运行条件，从而极有可能忽视相应的司法程序制度建设。     

不抵触宪法原则的适用范围:规范差异与制度逻辑

不抵触宪法原则是我国宪法上国家法制统一原则的一项重要内容。该原则对于贯彻宪法精神和原则,维护国家法制统一以及确定合宪性审查的对象范围,具有重要作用和指导意义。根据宪法第5条第3款、第67条第7项第8项、第100条第1款第2款的规定,不抵触宪法原则的适用范围包括法律、国务院制定的行政法规、决定和命令以及省、自治区、直辖市、设区的市人大及其常委会制定的地方性法规和决议。而根据《立法法》第72条第1款第2款、第87条、第97条第2项、第99条第1款第2款、第100条第1款第3款的规定,不抵触宪法原则的适用范围"被扩大"了,还包括自治条例、单行条例和规章。从合宪性审查的制度逻辑出发,宪法之所以将部分行政法规和地方性法规纳入不抵触宪法原则的适用范围,是因为它们存在着直接依据宪法制定的情形。而《立法法》将不抵触宪法原则的适用范围扩展到所有的法律规范,遵循的是一种宽泛意义上的制度逻辑,其所谓的"不抵触",不应当被解释为不抵触宪法原则适用范围的"扩大"。     

私法中的“人格”范畴含义辨析

在私法理论和制度中，“人格”范畴具有“主体资格”、“主体”、“主体特质”、“主体性要素”四种含义。其中，“主体资格”指特定的实体可以成为私法法律关系之主体的法定条件；“主体”指特定的实体获得主体资格后的法律状态；“主体特质”指特定的实体可以据之享有主体资格的其客观上所具备的属性；“主体性要素”则是人格权的客体，指自然入主体得以构成的且应得到尊重和保护的客观要素。这四种含义之间的区别主要体现为：“主体资格”是“主体”得以形成的法定条件，“主体资格”范畴也就是用来描述“（某种）实体”与“私法主体”之间的“转化关系”的概念；而“主体特质”和“主体性要素”都是指“主体”（或拥有主体资格的“实体”）在客观上所具有的属性，这两个范畴都属于描述某种“事物”的概念。     

Permissions, Principles and Rights. A Paper on Statements Expressing Constitutional Liberties

Abstract. In the first part of the paper the authors analyze how the distinction between mandatory rules, principles in the strict sense and policies can be understood in structural terms and in terms of reason for action. In the second part, they attempt to clarify which kind of legal provisions embrace constitutional statements recognizing liberty rights are.     

Rights,goals, and hard cases

Rights have two properties which prima facie appear to be inconsistent. The first is that they are conditional in the sense that one some occasions it is always justifiable for someone to act in a way which appears to be inconsistent with someone else's rights, such as when the defence of necessity applies. The second is that rights are indefeasible in the sense that they are not subject to being defeated our outweighed by utilitarian or policy considerations. If we view rules and the rights which they establish as being subject to a ceteris paribus clause, the form of which generates out the exceptions, the conditionality of rights becomes reconcilable with their nondefeasibility. Such a view of rules and rights would entail that the goals of the law and their orderings be considered as a part of the law. When so viewed, propositions about goals and their orderings become legitimate premises for legal reasoning, furnishing solutions to hard cases in the law of torts, without resort to balancing of interests or judicial discretion.     

司法判决与其他案例中的法律推理方法研究──说理的艺术

法律推理是一种说理的艺术。法律推理的难题是在不可能讲理的情况 下讲理、与“不讲理的人”讲理;既要法官能动地审理案件,又要防止法官专横审理。法律 推理的目的是寻求以法律为根据的正当理由。演绎推理、归纳推理、辩证推理是法律推 理的基本方法;它们按照不同的思维路径与规则寻求推理结论,但都面临其自身无法解 决的问题。法律价值在解决这些问题中具有主导性、基础性的作用。法官的法律价值判 断行为非常重要,从人类学的角度看这是一种四维框架中的判断行为。规范说理的艺术 可以防止法官在法律推理中的任意、专断,其方法包括培养法律感觉、进行法律价值判断 的合理化作业,养成法律惯例和法律信念,完善法律推理的制度与规则保证等,最终,法 律推理应当以人为本。     

走向现代刑法:违法性认识的规范展开

在"刑民不分"的前现代法律中,"不知法不免责"之"法",主要是伦理法、民商法,"责"则主要是采客观归责的侵权责任.而在"刑民有别"的现代法律中,由"前置法定性与刑事法定量相统一"的法益保护和不法制裁的部门法层级结构和比例分配所决定,客观构成要件中的规范要素以前置法的规范评价为核心,相应地,行为之前置法不法性认识乃主观构...     

汉语“宪法”意义考正

古汉语"宪法"是"宪"的一个衍生语词,二者词义有很大程度的同一性。古人训"宪"为"法",多直解其义,未能尽疏其意。他们用"宪"称"法",初为特指先王之法或旧典,意为恒常有效、世代遵从之法。后词义扩展,"宪"多泛指各种法律,成为对"法"的一种尊称。在先秦,"宪法"有两种构词:一是"宪"与"法"同义连缀,泛指国法;二是"宪法"作为一个偏正语词,"宪"是"法"的修饰词,"宪法"有"显法"或"常法"之义,但无"根本大法"或"最高法律"之义。秦汉以降,"宪法"皆属同义联合语词,泛指"国法"、"王法"、"法制"、"刑法",有时还指称一种治道与治法,但仍无"根本法"之义,仅蕴涵着人们对法的一种敬意。     

基于经验法则的法律论证

我国法官的裁判文书说理欲实现规范化,必须重视法律论证,为每个主张与判断提供充分的理由。最高人民法院的指导意见表明经验法则是法官进行法律论证的重要理由。经验法则作为一种实践描述能够推动法律论证填补规范缝隙。在事实认定的论证环节,经验法则既是证明规则与证据规则的形成背景,更是事实推定的直接依据。只有妥善把握经验法则的盖然性,才能规避逆谬误与后见偏差等认知陷阱,合理借助经验法则论证三段论中的小前提。在法律适用的论证环节,经验法则是类比过程中相似点与规范效果之间相关性的判断依据。法官可以借助经验法则论证立法理由与事物本质,进而根据法律目的判断相似点的相关性。基于经验法则的法律论证既能回应当下释法说理的需求,也是法律论证理论扎根中国司法土壤的尝试。     

Rules as Icons: Wittgenstein's Paradox and the Law

In this paper Section 1 distinguishes between two modes of interpreting legal rules: rehearsal and discourse, arguing that the former takes priority over the latter in law, as in many other contexts. Section 2 offers two arguments that following a legal rule in the rehearsing mode presents a riddle. The first argument develops from law, and submits that legal rules do not tell us anything, because they are tautological. The second one develops from philosophy (Wittgenstein's later works), confronting us with the paradox that incompatible courses of action may be derived from any rule. My solution presents a theory of rules as icons (Section 3 ). I use “icon” rather than “picture,” partly to avoid confusion with what is known among philosophers as “the picture theory of meaning.” Interpretation in the rehearsing mode hinges on imagination: imagining oneself in the space of reasons for action rather than reasoning oneself. In this act of imagination, we project ourselves into the rule in ways that are similar to the way we grasp the sense of paintings, music, stories, or poems. Finally (Section 4 ) I will defend the position that my view solves the puzzles in the second section, by arguing (a) that it is a better account of what Wittgenstein wrote than two competing theories (intuitionism and conventionalism), and (b) that it provides a more satisfactory account of how lawyers deal with legal rules in actual practice.     

从司法实践的视角看经济全球化与我国法制建设--论法与社会的互动

在全球化背景下 ,我国将面临法律移植、法制现代化等一系列复杂的社会变革 ,这必然要求我们以多元的法律意识来取代单一形态的法律意识 ,以多元的理念与规则推进政治和司法体制改革 ,协调好传统文化与外来文化、作为规则的“法”和民间规范等的关系 ,从而使作为发展中国家的我国在全球化时代也能取得更大的发展。     

法理即法律原理之解说

自清末民初以来,将法理解说为法律原理就成为法学界的通例,但其界定方式则有四种:一是径直以法律原理定位法理;二是将法律原理、法律原则并列来定位法理;三是将法理视为由法律原理推导出的法律一般原则;四是认为法理是指法律原则,但包括法律原理在内。法理和法律原理的存在是一种客观的必然:世上的万事万物都应有其存在和运行的原理,法律自然也不例外;法律作为人类的伟大创造,自身即蕴含着追求正义等法律价值的法理;法律的价值观念虽因时代、地区的不同而会有所差异,但其中的基础法理却不受时空影响;对法律的分析和研究舍法理之外别无他途。立足于已有的研究成果,可将法理界定为"在综合各种法律现象的基础上,由学者所抽象并为社会所认同的有关法律基础、法律根据、法律判准、法律渊源的基础性、普遍性原理"。同时,法理与自然规律、社会价值、内存于法典和单行法律中的法律原则以及事理、情理等存在明显的差异,不可混淆。     

社会管理概念的法规范分析

作为时下的一个焦点概念,"社会管理"极少在法规范意义上得以解析。通过检索可知,我国现行法规范中有3部法律及8部行政法规直接使用了社会管理概念,最典型的是《刑法》与《治安管理处罚法》。前者用整整一章规定了"妨害社会管理秩序罪",后者用一节规定了"妨害社会管理的行为和处罚"。分析表明,社会管理立法数量少,水平低;法规范中的社会管理概念是在狭义上使用,具有弱经济性、弱政治性乃至非经济性、非政治性的特征;主要是在消极语境中使用,管制色彩浓厚;法规范中的社会管理概念与社会管理创新语境下的社会管理概念有较大差别,不同法规范中的社会管理概念也有差异。社会管理法治化是社会管理创新的必由之路,它呼唤认真对待作为法律概念的社会管理。     

Judicial authority through the experiences of crisis

This article is concerned with law’s experiences and making sense of crisis. When we talk about law’s response to crisis, we refer to law not as an abstract set of rules but as an embodied and animated assemblage of relations and practices. This way, law needs to make sense of any crisis to respond to it. The article draws on cultural legal studies to explore the constitution of judicial authority in the context of a democracy in flux. The article relies on fieldwork data collected in the interviews conducted by the author with Lithuanian judges in 2019. Highest in more than two decades, public trust in the judiciary in 2018 indicated a remarkable achievement for Lithuania, a country whose judicial system had been in a state of flux since the end of the Soviet era. However, after an unprecedented and highly mediated judicial corruption scandal in 2019, the rates of public trust plummeted, uncovering complex dynamics between the image of courts, mass media, and the public. Against this backdrop, the article explores how judges make sense of crisis that develops on the intersections of provocative reality judging and formal judicial institutions. It shows how judicial authority is constituted in the conditions of crisis on the tension between law and culture. Emerging from a crisis of authority is the changing face of judging. A post-colonial vantage point and theatrical jurisprudence are used to respond to a development of a desire of power under a mask of rationality, objectivity, and universality. The article concludes by contemplating how this authority shapes our lifeworlds.

     

论普通法的“宏大风格”

普通法的宏大风格是美国著名现实主义法学家卡尔·卢埃林提出的旨在取代形式主义法学的一种新的法学理论。这一理论认为,法官承担着双重义务,既要执行法律,又要追求公平、正义;如何平衡和协调这两种义务是一门高超的司法艺术。强调法官的情境感悟,主张灵活解释法律,关注规则背后的立法理由,坚持对规则的适用不得超出规范目的,是这一理论的核心思想。     

Fragments of a Theory of Legal Sources

Abstract. The author discusses a number of issues in the theory of legal sources. The first topic is whether sources should be conceived of as acts or texts. The alternatives are connected with two competing theories of legal interpretation (viz., the cognitive theory and the sceptical theory), which entail different concepts of legal rules and law-making. The second topic is whether a "formal" or a "material" criterion of recognition of sources should be preferred. The third section is devoted to the analysis of rules of change. Four theories of rules of change are discussed, and five kinds of such rules are distinguished. The fourth section concerns judicial law-making, with special reference to the creation of new legal rules by constitutional courts.     

On The Interpretation Of Laws

Abstract. The essay is an attempt to examine aspects of legal interpretation from an external, sociological point of view. "Interpretation", in its normal juristic sense, is primarily a process in which decision-makers with secondary legitimacy link their decisions to authority of primary legitimacy. The type of legitimacy which is dominant within the legal system greatly influences the style of interpretation - in "closed" systems, where the stock of premises is fixed, "legalism" will abound. Legal interpretation is not concerned with what a text really means, in any literal sense; and standards for judging legal interpretation are different from the standards of judging other forms of communication, for example, literature. Indeed, a judge can be considered great precisely because of his creative acts of mis interpretation.     

法律原则在法律推理中的地位和作用——一个比较的研究

我国关于法律原则的讨论一般集中在立法过于笼统与立法所规定的法律基本原则这两个方面。这种意义上的法律原则与德沃金所说的法律原则存在重要区别。德沃金关于法律原则的讨论其目的是强调法律的确定性 ,而我们关于法律原则的讨论却在强化法律的模糊性。法律原则的讨论主要涉及法律推理过程中原则与规则之间的关系。基于法治的原因 ,法律推理必须坚持将法律规则作为法律推理的大前提 ;在法律规则含义不明确、模糊或者相互矛盾时 ,可以使用法律原则 ,但是 ,必须经过一定的法律原则的认定程序。     

Prosecuting Violence, Performing Sovereignty: The Trial of Dusko Tadic

This article is a critical reading of the contemporary international legal regulation of warfare and an analysis of war crimes trials as ``sovereignty-producing practices'. Whereas proponents of international law optimistically presume that the advent of war crimes tribunals signifies a humanitarian-inspired erosion of sovereignty in the international system, this article shows that legislating violence in war exemplifies an international commitment to structures which normalize war and violence while individualizing, dehistoricizing and depoliticizing criminal acts. This analysis focuses on the first trial of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia which convicted Dusko Tadic of war crimes and crimes against humanity.     

造法性民事诉讼司法解释研究

民事诉讼司法解释具有造法性,其原因是复杂的,它所带来的利弊是多方面的。改革的方案是,在以修法的方式确立符合当今中国社会的各项民事诉讼基本原则的前提下,确认最高人民法院有限的程序规则制定权,其性质为授权立法;同时对最高人民法院制定的程序规则建立备案审查机制,监督司法立法权的行使;禁止地方各级法院的程序规则创制权。