围绕“人格”问题的法理论辩

"人格"问题在法学与法律上都是个众说纷纭的概念,由此也引起学界对其意义、范围以及与其它概念相区别的争论。诸如"人格的概念在法律上是否必需?","人格概念是否仅存在于私法制度之中?","人格"的概念是否与"法律主体"、"权利能力"的内涵相同?……等等,都常常引起人们的关注。作为法学、法律上的一个基础概念,人格有其存在的特殊意义,它既在私法上成为法律主体建构的基石,也在公法上为人的平等提供了依据。同时,人格既不等同于法律主体,也不类似于权利能力,而是法学、法律上具有独特内涵的专门范畴。     

Madness and the Law: The Derrida/Foucault Debate Revisited

In this article the Derrida/Foucault debate is scrutinised with two closely related aims in mind: (1) reconsidering the way in which Foucault’s texts, and especially the more recently published lectures, should be read; and (2) establishing the relation between law and madness. The article firstly calls for a reading of Foucault which exceeds metaphysics with the security it offers, by taking account of Derrida’s reading of Foucault as well as of the heterogeneity of Foucault’s texts. The article reflects in detail on a text of Derrida on Foucault (‘Cogito and the History of Madness’) as well as a text of Foucault on Blanchot (‘Maurice Blanchot: The Thought from Outside’). The latter text shows that Foucault was at times acutely aware of the difficulty involved in exceeding metaphysics and that he realised the importance in this regard of a reflection on literature. These reflections tie in closely with Foucault’s History of Madness as well as with Derrida’s reflections on literature and on madness. Both Derrida and Foucault contend that law has much to learn from literature in understanding the relation between itself and madness. Literature more specifically points to law’s ‘origin’ in madness. The article contends that a failure to take seriously this origin, also in the reading of Foucault’s lectures, would amount to a denial by law of itself.     

司法审判的法哲学分析

司法判决是制度、事实、个人活动的合因之果,判决形成的思维工具包括法律解释和法律推理;判决以确定性为特征,而法官形成判决过程中的判断却具有综合性。     

风险社会的法理解读

风险社会理论在全球化浪潮的裹挟下已经成功地波及了世界上大多数国家,风险社会与社会风险是存在差异的概念,对风险社会的理解必须置于特定的语境和场域之中,中国的风险社会具有强烈的地域特色与时代背景。风险社会的生成引发了一系列社会变革和理念更新,法理学界应当认真对待这种大变革。文章主要从法律理念以及法律制度的构建与运行层面对风险社会进行法理学的解读。     

行政备案的法理界说

行政备案在法规范层面呈现出多重含义,学界对备案也有众多不同解读。结合行政实际,从行政法学意义上看,行政备案是指公民、法人或其他组织依法将与行政管理有关的具体事务的相关材料向行政机关报送,行政机关对报送材料收集、整理、存档备查的一种程序性事实行为和行政法律制度。     

论私力救济与公力救济的交错——一个法理的阐释

本文挑战了私力救济与公力救济关系的流行观念 ,提出两者之间关系密切、交错互动 ,并从其相互影响和相互转化等方面作了详尽阐述 ,为公力救济、司法、以及法治等问题提供了一个全新视角     

环境资源法调整对象的论战——第二届福州大学“东南法学论坛”综述

为推动具有时代特征的环境法学理论创新,促进环境法学研究和学科建设的发展,福州大学法学院举办了第二届“东南法学论坛”,我国著名的法理学和环境法专家与福州大学法学院百余名教师和研究生,就环境法能否调整人与自然的关系以及能否对主流法理学提出挑战,展开了激烈的辩论和深入的探讨。此文陈述了本届论坛双方的精彩论战。     

刑事诉讼的法理和政治基础

本文从法治的核心内容出发,论述了证据法对诉讼制度的重要意义以及证据是法治的基石的原理.作者认为,证据法具有普适性,证据法的大部分内容在人类所有的诉讼程序中都是相同的,只有极其微小的例外.相比之下,刑事诉讼法具有地方性,体现了不同的制度安排和设想.诉讼法是本土化的,属于地方性知识;像实体法一样,它反映了时间空间的特殊性.刑事程序不能与其周围因素隔绝开来而孤立地加以看待,而要分析政府的性质、政府与民众的适当关系以及个人利益的性质等.因此,研究美国刑事诉讼法,不能仅仅考察成文法律和案例,还要深入了解美国的历史、文化、经济以及其他影响因素.要理解美国刑事司法制度的实际运作,需要深入研究其法理和政治问题,包括书本上的法律与实践中的法律之间的差别;程序法与实体法之间紧密的相互关系,特别是事实上程序法是实体法的载体,而非我们习惯上所认为的相反的情况;一般的历史,特别是种族关系和种族歧视问题;经济因素.     

试论诉讼契约的法理基础

在经历了从"否定说"到"肯定说"的转变之后,诉讼契约已经成为民事诉讼的基本理论问题之一。承认诉讼契约已是现代民事诉讼的大势所趋,它不仅体现了"意思自治"原则和精神的要求,并且在民事诉讼程序中,还与当事人主义的民事诉讼模式,解决纠纷的诉讼目的,当事人之间的争讼法律关系有着必然的联系。     

作者人格权:内在本质与功能构建的法理抉择

著作权法存在诸多谜题,不仅体现在著作权是纯粹的财产权还是财产与人格一体权的逻辑困境上,更体现在相比作者而言,为何发明人缺乏独立完整的人格权,署名权可否转让,将法人视为作者的体系矛盾等等,且各国对作者人格权的保护态度和设权模式存在较大差异。通过引入事实问题与价值问题相区分的分析方法可以揭示:作者人格权与其他权利一样皆为功能性建构,服务于特定的公众需求、经济水平及社会目标,而论证其正当性的哲学观念仅仅发挥着隐藏某一价值取向说服他人接受的修辞作用,而非揭示事物本质或科学真理,这恰恰彰显了法学作为人文学科的内在规律。     

“大调解”工作体系的法理解读

＂大调解＂工作体系已成为我国有效化解各类社会矛盾的重要手段之一。在全国范围推行＂大调解＂工作体系,是基于对其本质属性、内生动力以及发展诉求的科学认知的结果。作为我国独有的司法制度,＂大调解＂工作体系的构建应注重经验与理性的互动,应与司法能动紧密结合起来。     

金融公正理念的法学阐释

资本扩张所导致的金融危机与两极分化,将弘扬自由与平等为主旨的金融法拖入了目标和现实相背离的现代性悖论之中。从公正理念的维度,重新审视现代金融法的价值取向与功能定位,对于缓解法的服从性与正当性之间的紧张关系,以及维护法的权威性具有重要意义。推进中国金融法制的现代化进程,须对西方的现代性范式扬善抑恶,以求实现金融自由与社会秩序的良性互动。     

政府干预市场经济的法理分析

政府是否干预市场一直是经济学关注的话题,从法理学角度少有探讨。在2008年席卷全球的金融危机中,各国政府都采取相应措施积极地对本国经济进行有效有力地干预。通过政府干预市场经济的逻辑起点需要和共生存在的思考和政府干预市场经济中权力、权利与责任互动关系的探讨及政府干预市场经济的正义向度的分析,为中国政府对市场经济进行有限有效地干预提供坚实的法理基础。     

Fuzzy Legality in Regulation: The Legislative Mandate Revisited

How does law interact with regulatory reality, and why does legislative mandate, which presumably stands at the apex of a regulatory package, often deviate from its ideal‐type as exclusive organizer of action? These questions are treated in this article through the concept of “fuzzy legality,” which serves as a common title for six different legal arrangements that stray from the ideal‐type legislative mandate, while enabling “perfectly legal” industry behavior. Against the background of potential dangers involved in such practices, the article traces the politics of preference for fuzziness both by regulators and regulatees. It reassesses calls for responsive and reflexive law as a cure for the regulatory malaise: these may have been voiced due to existing overly rigid regulatory frameworks, rather than the intrinsic flaw of legal constructs.     

Gault's Promise Revisited: The Search For Due Process

Fifty years ago, due process was introduced into the juvenile courts, but today children still do not have the guiding hand of counsel at every stage of the proceedings. In assessing the pre‐Gault world, Chief Justice Fortas observed that “[a] child receives the worst of both worlds:…he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children.” 1 Fortas opined that “Then as now good will and compassion were admirably prevalent. But recent studies have entered with surprising unanimity, sharp dissent to the vitality of this gentle conception. They suggest that the appearance as well as the actuality of fairness‐ impartiality and orderliness‐ in short the essentials of due process may be a more therapeutic attitude so far as the juvenile is concerned.” 2 The prescience of his observation has found resonance and reinforcement with the 2013 publication of Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach 3 which was commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention (OJJDP). Reforming Juvenile Justice's emphasis on encouraging not only the perception but the actuality of fairness in all domains 4 connects directly to the essence of Gault's message. “Treating youth fairly and ensuring that they perceive that have been treated fairly and with dignity contribute to positive outcomes in the normal processes of social learning, moral development, and legal socialization adolescence.” 5 The research also demonstrates that public health oriented alternatives to traditional court processing promote social connection and positive youth development. 6 The OJJDP report provides a road map for promoting positive youth development and social engagement by demonstrating that supporting such policies improves public safety outcomes by reducing recidivism. In exploring whether Gault's promise of due process has been realized or is still aspirational, this article suggests that our inquiry requires us to think contextually by considering how children and families are treated in and out of the courtroom. This entails consideration of educational, child welfare and mental health services, as well as the scope of legal entitlements. Equity and fundamental fairness, euphemisms for due process, are what will truly effectuate Gault's promise and should be the benchmark for all courts and systems that engage with children.     

法律全球化：争论与出路

围绕着法律全球化问题,我国学者产生了有没有、要不要和如何进行的三重争议,由于这些争议是在没有对全球化做出前提性界定的基础上进行的,所以总是陷入事实与价值两极之争的困境之中。我们引入“过程”论来理解全球化的思想,意在指出从发展路向上看全球化有不同的阶段且每个阶段都有它的内在规定性。从当下的阶段来看,全球化已经把世界联结为一个异质的整体,从性质上说这个整体是事实和价值的统一体。它们一起对法律全球化的过程、制度和理念起着规制作用。理解这种“过程”论要求我们从根本上转换现代法的精神,即促进权利范式的发展、培育新的自由理念和参与全球法律制度竞争与全球治理。     

The Enforcement of Morals Revisited

Against Patrick Devlin, H. L. A. Hart rejects the enforcement of morals as such. Hart defends an expanded version of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, but this expanded version is no more defensible than Mill’s original claim. Hart’s discussion fails to clarify what is really at stake in controversies regarding the moral acceptability of criminal prohibition of such activities as suicide and assisted suicide, recreational drug use, prostitution, and so on. Regarding the enforcement of morals as such, we should acknowledge that the jury is still out.     

Corporate Personality: A Politico‐Jurisprudential Argument

This article is an attempt to develop a practical politico‐jurisprudential account of the corporate person, which it does by building on contemporary ideas about collective and shared intentions. It argues for a model of shared intentions, which posits a set of interlocking preferences, and other supporting attitudes. It examines the work of Bratman, Gilbert, Hurley, and Sugden and addresses issues of choice, coercion and will.