多元的物权法源及其适用规律

从我国物权的立法、司法、交易等实践情况来看,我国的物权法源是多元的。在属于规范性法律文件的法源中,国家立法机构制定的物权法等狭义法律是核心,它们的位阶平等,相互间存在替代、细化、补充等关系。狭义法律之外的其他规范性法律文件,包括行政法规、地方性法规、没有变通规定的自治条例、单行条例或经济特区法规、司法解释、部门规章、地方政府规章,解释和细化了狭义法律,在不违背狭义法律目的的前提下,给物权内容提供了重要支撑。规范性法律文件所认可的法源包括国家有关规定或国务院的有关规定以及当事人订立的合同。在上述法源之外,习惯与物权法的根本宗旨、基本定位、整体风格、相关规定等高度契合,在无其他法源可供适用时起到补充作用。中国共产党的政策在农村土地物权领域发挥着重要作用,在它与狭义法律不一致时,承载基本政策和具体政策的党中央文件可作为法院裁判说理的依据.但不能成为裁判依据。     

刑法解释学的独立品格

刑法解释学属于广义刑法学的一个核心分支学科,并具有自身独立的学科品格。其独立的学科品格包括三个内在的学科独立基本要素和三个外在的学科独立条件。前者是指刑法解释权、刑法解释行为和刑法解释结论;后者包括：狭义刑法学无法涵盖刑法解释学,即刑法解释学不等同于狭义刑法学;广义刑法学本身已昭示了刑法解释学自身的独立性;刑法解释学的产生和发展遵循着法学学科独立的一般性规律。倡导刑法解释学的学科独立品格,其价值在于：推进刑法学的学科应用功能;纠偏刑法学研究者热衷于铸造恢宏的概念化法学架构而忽视刑法应用实效研究的倾向;彰显刑法解释学价值判断的实践属性。     

证据法革新的框架

法治如同一种粘合剂,将社会各部分安稳地维系在一起.它给人们提供了途径,以便事先知晓权利和义务,并可围绕其进行协商.我拥有某样东西,你想要得到这样东西.你就需要与我就其价格进行洽谈而不能肆意地侵占.因此,在这个重要意义上,法律实际上是赋予了人们自由而非限制.人们习惯上将法治的价值主要归结于对权利及其相应义务的描绘.这种观点有一定道理,但其模糊了某些同等重要的因素,即：没有争议的准确解决——换言之,若没有准确的事实认定——权利和义务便都失去了意义.证据法有助于准确的事实认定,是法治中最为关键的一环;一部完善的证据法虽无法确保法治的实现,但却绝对是法治的必要组成部分.然而,构建完善的证据法绝非易事,因为证据规则属于诉讼理论的一部分;诉讼理论又包含于政府理论之中;而各国的政府理论可谓是千差万别.此外,对于如何最有效率和效果地寻找事实真相仍然存在分歧,且与之相关的是,当追求事实真相的价值与其它社会价值处于竞争关系时,孰优孰劣、如何取舍的问题也存在着分歧.最后,外行事实认定者（如陪审员）的参与会影响到诉讼程序的架构.总之,证据法至少要安置好五方面问题,即：架构问题、认识论问题、社会问题、管理问题和执行问题.     

组织框架下表决权拘束协议的体系规制

凡是以股东表决权行使为标的的债权协议均为表决权拘束协议,其在实践应用中具有不同的形态与功能。对表决权拘束协议进行规制,不仅需要将其从不同合同类型中识别出来,更要厘清不同形态背后差异化的规制目的与法律对策。合同法、公司法、证券法共同构建了规制体系,三者各有侧重:合同法提供了概念与规则基础;公司法进行了组织价值与规则的填充;证券法通过其合并规则应对义务的规避,解决形式与实质的不一致问题。三者不可偏废:合同层面的纠纷解决不能脱离组织的特殊性而抽象地适用合同法规范;证券特别规制的妥当适用,也无法脱离其合同法与公司法的规范与概念基础。     

H. L. A. Hart on Legal Obligation*

Abstract. The author discusses Hart's concept of legal obligation, especially his contention that there is an obligation to obey the law which is peculiarly legal, i.e., non-moral. This view is held to be mistaken. What is denied is that legal rules, merely by their being issued, offer a justification for the use of coercion to ensure compliance with them. Although moral and other social (customary) rules are considered self-justifying, that is not the case of legal rules. Any analogy between these two types of rules in justifying their implementation by force is deemed wrong.**     

保险合同权利结构与保险利益归附之主体——评《中华人民共和国保险法(修改草案送审稿)》第12条、33条、53条之规定

保险利益是保险法的灵魂,也是保险法的独特范畴,其所应归附的主体如何影响着保险利益法律规则设计的合理性及其防止道德危险功能的发挥。而保险合同的权利结构决定着保险利益所须归附的主体,所以在设计保险利益主体规则时,必须明了保险合同权利结构与保险利益归附主体之间的关系。我国现行保险法上关于保险利益主体的规则存在着诸多失误,这会影响人们通过保险合同实现其生活目的,妨碍保险利益规则防止道德危险功能的发挥。在未来保险法修订时,立法者须在确切理解保险合同权利结构与保险利益应归附主体之间关系的前提下进行相应修改。     

论人格权的本质——兼评我国民法草案关于人格权的规定

自然人人格是由宪法赋予自然人的一般法律地位 ,不同于作为民事法律关系主体资格的权利能力。人格权为自然人获得法律强制力保障的一般法律地位从权利角度进行的表达 ,自然人直接依据宪法生而有之 ,并非由民法赋予。人格权在理论和实践中的私权化 ,系由民法形式逻辑结构需要以及团体人格的塑造等原因引起 ,反映了一种狭隘的民法实证主义观念。人格权在现代社会的发展及一般人格权的创制 ,导致私权化的人格权向宪法权利的回归。团体人格是对自然人人格在民事主体资格意义上的模仿 ,法人不享有人格权。     

证据规则体系及其中国构建

证据规则经过排列组合可以形成完整的体系。根据其基本作用与实施目标，证据规则体系可分解为关联性规则、辅助性规则和外部政策规则三大类。其中辅助性规则又可细分为优先性规则、分析性规则、预防性规则、简化性规则和定量性规则。我国目前已有一些证据规则的规定，但尚不足以形成完整的体系，影响了我国司法制度的进一步改革和完善。不妨参考借鉴普通法的经验，补自身之不足，以实现证据规则体系整体构建的完成和各个证据规则之间的协调施行。     

“Hand-to-mouth” citizenship: decision time for the UK Supreme Court on the substance of Zambrano rights,EU citizenship and equal treatment

UK benefit rules strip Zambrano residence rights, for UK national children and their third country national primary carers, of equal treatment entitlement. These rules are challenged in a case pending before the UK Supreme Court. This piece argues that Zambrano creates an EU-citizenship-based right to reside which necessarily entails equal treatment. UK national children in Zambrano families fall within the scope of EU law so are not prevented by the wholly internal rule from claiming equal treatment with EU national children in Teixeira families. And they are protected by equal treatment as a general principle of EU law, which requires equal treatment with other UK national children. The justifications for automatic unequal treatment put forward before, and accepted with alacrity by, the Court of Appeal, are poorly reasoned and ill-matched with the rules in question – most notably because Zambrano families may have strong connections with the UK. A CJEU reference is likely; a Zambrano right is the right to reside in the Union – it is the right to have EU rights. The substance of EU citizenship is at stake.     

Comment on Franz Von Benda-Beckmann, “anthropological approaches to property law and economics”

This comment deals with criticisms of law and economics analysis as they can be formulated from the point of view of an anthropologist. These criticisms are taken seriously. The author first addresses so-called defects of law and economics analysis which should be considered underdeveloped areas of the approach. Secondly, and more specifically, weaknesses of the property rights approach are taken up. In the author's view, they should be dealt with in future law and economics work. Finally, methodological issues are being addressed which, if not considered with circumspection, could impair the scientific integrity of the law and economics approach.     

The Voice of the Community in Private Law Discourse

Formalist private lawyers, with their view of law as an autonomous sphere and their emphasis upon allocative rules, tend to approach the issue of the harmonisation of private law in Europe with the following question: are the substantive rights and remedies of private individual actors sufficiently similar within each of the Member States to allow for the unification of autonomous private legal systems. Here the issue is essentially one of terminology. While sceptical voices maintain that formal private law is also a more complex matter of interrelated procedures and practices, many formalists conclude that whilst the terms of rights and remedies may differ slightly throughout Europe, there is sufficient substantive convergence to allow for harmonisation. However, lawyers of a sociological persuasion who see private law as being contingent upon society Ð a process reflexively and recursively facilitating economic activities and responding to social change Ð consider harmonisation to be dependent upon the harmonisation of market practices themselves. This paper, one of the most subtle of sociological contributions, tackles this issue with an innovative eye to the increasing blurring of the distinction between public and private concerns. The voice of Europe is the voice of a political collective and theoretically, under the once sacrosanct paradigm of the public/private divide, should not be heard within the 'individualistic' sphere of private law. However, just as national private law judges are generally responding to social concerns and are seeking to integrate collective voices within a once 'atomised' realm, so too are they taking note of the political voice of Europe: attempting to respond to the desire for integration and harmonisation within their jurisprudence.     

Cohabitation,Registration, and Reliance: Creating A Comprehensive and Just Scheme for Protecting the Interests of Couples' Real Relationships

This paper argues that courts and legislatures should recognize and protect adult relationships other than marriage, in two ways. First, couples in committed, cohabitating relationships should be protected when their relationship dissolves—even if they are not formally married. The law in this area is currently inconsistent and confusing, and should be cleaned up to reflect the reality of the lives of committed couples in need of legal protection. Second, all states should establish a registration scheme along the lines of Colorado's designated beneficiary law, which allows couples to flexibly design their legal relationship. This status should include specific arrangements about the ownership of property over the course of a long relationship, and should also be expanded to allow people to enter into more than one such relationship at a time, as long as the rights and obligations are not inconsistent. Given the number of couples operating outside of traditional marriage today, these two reforms will increase certainty of legal outcome and better protect the reliance interests of those in committed relationships.     

Real Property, Spontaneous Order, and Norms in the Gold Mines

This article contributes to the current debate about why people follow the law even when they are not subject to legal sanctions, as when there are no police and little danger of a lawsuit. Most recent scholarship in this area takes the form of norms theories, suggesting that social norms rather than laws shape behavior and that deviations from the norm are punished by either social or internal sanctions. Robert Sugden, however, proposes that order may develop "spontaneously" in the many areas of life where abiding by the rules minimizes the risk of costly confrontations with others and is thus in the interest of all parties. When this is true, the threat of little or no sanctions plays no role in regulating behavior. This article tests Sugden's theory against a simple property system, that of the California gold mines, in which individual miners held small claims subject to strict work requirements. The evidence of eyewitnesses shows that the stability of the regime did not depend on norms, but on the reasonable prediction that other claim holders would themselves stand up for their rights under the local mining code. Disputes about the rules and their application were submitted to arbitrators, whose decisions were accepted by the parties and did not need to be enforced. The California experience thus provides an example of a stable property regime for which game theory has a more satisfying explanation than do any of the norms theories.     

Law,Love and Legality

The argument of this paper is that our lives have meaning because theyare structured by rules which are open to the outside, through which theoutside can reflexively fold back into the rules so that it canregenerate and transform them. It is this process that constitutes theunity and integrity of our lives and gives them coherence. Our lives donot have certainty in the sense that there is always a definite answeras to how we should live. It is in the reflexive unity of law and lovethat we have the confidence to respond to the outside and create andtransform our narratives, however dangerous that may seem. We might callthis ``legality' – the ability to go beyond the law at theappropriate time. In this sense then, it is a creative activity and isto be distinguished from legalism, which thinks that following the rulesis all that there is. But following the rules is important, for it isonly in following them and being faithful to them that we gain theunderstanding of when to break them. That creativity, which stems fromthe precarious linking of the arbitrary and the structured, might leadus to think of legality as a form of anarchy – not of thenihilistic variety but of the ability creatively to break the law andthus regenerate it.     

论社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联关系与风险防范

社会危害性理论与法益理论确实可以成为实质刑法观的理论基础,但是社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联性比较复杂,并非如部分学者所提示的那样一一对应。就持有传统社会危害性理论立场的学者而言,他们其实并非可以简单地归入实质刑法观立场;而主张改革完善传统社会危害性理论的部分学者,反而坚持实质刑法观立场。在中国语境下,实质刑法观面临的风险与批评,主要根源就在于作为实质刑法观理论基础的社会危害性理论具有太过强大的解释功能,且实质解释论的功能表现包括了保障人权的正面功能与严重侵犯人权的负面功能的两面,呈现出矛盾属性。为了防范风险,不但需要发展实质刑法观,而且需要完善社会危害性理论。单面的实质刑法观或者保守的实质刑法观,主张通过实质罪刑法定原则的限制、实质犯罪论的限制与实质司法解释权的限制,以有效防范开放的实质刑法观可能存在的侵蚀人权保障机能的风险,因而应当成为当下中国最理想的选择。     

Principles,Passions, and the Paradox of Modern Law: A Comment on Bybee

In All Judges Are Political—Except When They Are Not: Acceptable Hypocrisies and the Rule of Law ( 2010 ), Keith Bybee considers the hypocrisy of modern law—that is, the widespread view that judges are both principled and partisan—by drawing an analogy with courtesy. Both law and courtesy contain and manage the diverse and potentially divisive interests that would, were they not contained, disrupt social life. In this essay I extend this argument by considering whether the relationship between law and courtesy is more than merely analogical. I suggest that both systems are aspects of larger historical developments out of which emerged the modern subject and the modern state, creating a social world made up of apparently bounded individuals and institutions. As such, law and courtesy do more than conceal and contain interests and subjectivity; they produce the unruly, partisan subjects they are designed to manage.     

《刑法修正案（九）》第120条前置化规制的法理探析

《刑法修正案（九）》第120条的前置化规制是保护重大法益的必要手段,对其正当性的讨论为当前立法和司法突破和扩张的态势提供了法理依据。敌视社会基本规范和恐怖犯罪的预备或预备的预备行为已呈现出侵害重大法益的抽象危险,具备了前置化规制预备行为的前提要素;在识别敌人刑法争议的根源并加以理性辨别的基础上,从立法目的都是社会要保护自身免受该违法者的侵犯之角度,前置化规制的依据与某些敌人刑法的理念存在有限的内在暗合,但不可否认,尚未成熟的敌人刑法亦与前置化规制存在疏离之处;而敌视基本法规范且具有抽象危险的实质预备犯满足了前置化规制现实依据的要求。其处罚边界亦需遵循,应根据行为方式和特征进行司法定量限制及限缩解释。     

人格立法之时代性与人格权的权利内质

法律人格是时代背景的产物,时代背景的变化必然要求变革人格立法以满足权利主体的正当性需求。以罗马法为代表的人格立法向以《法国民法典》等为代表的人格立法的发展,确立了以人之生命的保全和促进为目的的伦理性法律人格制度。这种法律上对人的伦理关怀,在遭遇现代科技特别是生命科技等因素的时候,使得单纯以生命的保全和促进为目的的人格立法不再与人的实现这一法律命令相一致。于此,个体主张其享有的人格权不应仅限于防御性的权利而应内涵积极请求权的特质。一方面,德国等国的法律实践对此态度犹豫不决,另一方面,现实生活中的个体因为其正当性权利要求得不到法律上的支持而陷入困境之中。因此,必须适时承认个体的这种权利主张以满足人之实现的法律命令。