"特别法"与"一般法"之关系及适用问题探讨

一般法(一般规定)是指在时间、空间、对象以及立法事项上作出的一般性规定的法律规范,特别法(特别规定)则是适用于特定时间、特定空间、特定主体(或对象)、特定事项(或行为)的法律规范。“特别法优于一般法”规则不仅适用于同位法之间而且也适用于不同位阶的法律规范之间,但其适用条件则有不同的要求。     

略论苏联到俄罗斯法定义的变迁

从苏联到俄罗斯法的定义先后经历了三种主要观点的变化 :( 1)法律虚无主义法观点 ,( 2 )维辛斯基法的定义 ,( 3 )俄罗斯法学家理解法的多元化综合性观点。其中维辛斯基法的定义对中国法的定义产生了深远影响。这些变化主要体现了从法的阶级性观点走向法的社会性观点。当代中国不应当过分强调法的阶级性 ,社会性应当成为法的本质属性     

韩非子“以法为本”思想的逻辑自洽性和历史合理性——兼论其利弊得失对现代法治的借鉴意义

法家思想集大成者韩非子的“以法为本”思想相对于先秦其他士人的相关思想而言,在理论上更加完备,付诸实践则更加易知易行。其“以法为本”思想以普通大众所具有的自利之心为内在根据,以法律制定的现实性与正当性为基础,以法律适用的统一性与平等性为保障,具有逻辑自洽性。其反对崇古,坚持治国应务法而不务德;反对“势治”和“术治”,坚持“以法为本”,将“势”和“术”统一到“法”中;反对君主“释法用私”,强调君主严格守法,具有历史合理性和进步性。韩非子“以法为本”思想具有有利于我国当前法治建设中依法行政、正确理解与践行德法并举、完善立法的理论养分,应加以借鉴和吸收;其不当之处体现在以维护君主专制统治为出发点和归宿,完全否定道德的作用,在实践中导致人治和对民众利益的践踏,不利于法治发展,也无益于国家治理。     

论传统刑法文化对刑事司法所带来的负面影响及其改进

当今中国比较先进的刑事司法制度为什么不能很好地付诸实施?其原因可能是多方面的。试图从刑法文化视角进行诠释。主要观点是:(1)刑法文化包括观念性刑法文化和制度性刑法文化,它们之间的冲突是导致刑事司法不能很好地遵守刑事法规定现象产生的原因。(2)之所以发生观念性刑法文化和制度性刑法文化的冲突,主要是由于影响当今法官观念性刑法文化的中国传统刑法文化存在不足。(3)要想使刑事司法制度得以实现,就必须改进中国传统刑法文化之不足。     

经济的知识化、知识的权力化与法律的知识化

知识经济已经成为新世纪经济发展和法律变革的时代主题 ,社会经济的知识化以及由此带来的知识的权力化 ,引起了构成法律基本要素的“理”即生产方式与“力”即国家权力的相应变化 ,进而引起了法律的知识化发展趋势 ,建立在知识基础上的法律更具有合法性 ,未来法治的重心应是加强知识的法律化和法律的知识化建设。     

The Legality of Law

Abstract. In this paper I outline various different objects of investigation that may be picked out by word “law” (or its cognates). All of these objects must be investigated in an integrated way before one can provide a complete philosophical explanation of the nature of law. I begin with the distinction between laws (artefacts) and law (the genre to which the artefacts belong). This leads me to the distinction between the law (of a particular legal system) and law (the genre of artefacts). Then I discuss the contrast between law (the genre of artefacts) and law (the practice). Finally I comment on legality as the name of an ideal for laws and legal systems to live up to. I commend H. L. A. Hart's explanation of the nature of law for investigating these various objects in an integraed way, while nevertheless respecting the distinctions among them. I also criticise some of R. M. Dworkin's work for failing to respect the same distinctions.     

On the efficiency of the common law: an application to the recovery of rewards

Richard Posner’s influence on the field of law and economics cannot be overstated. Among his many contributions, Posner offered an early conjecture that remains fascinating and controversial to this day: the idea that common law rules are more likely than legislative codes to be concerned with efficiency. In this paper, I compare the efficiency of a common law rule of contracting to the efficiency of a civil law rule. In common law jurisdictions, claimants must have knowledge of a reward in order to recover. In civil law jurisdictions, however, no such knowledge is required. I analyze the efficiency of each rule by examining the incentives created by each rule. In a finding that agrees with Posner’s hypothesis, I argue that the common law rule is more efficient. The model has a number of applications beyond contract default laws. I use the model to discuss three legal questions previously analyzed by Richard Posner: (1) incentivizing innovation; (2) the finders-keepers rule in property law; and (3) salvage rights in maritime law.     

“交易习惯”研究

习惯、习惯法在漫长的人类社会中起着重要作用 ,近现代各国都比较重视习惯法的研究工作 ;相反 ,具有数千年习惯法 (礼 )传统的我国对习惯法的研究却甚少。新通过的《合同法》用九个条文规定“交易习惯”的适用。本文认为 ,合同法所言“交易习惯”即指习惯法 ,其成立要件及其在合同法中的作用在文中将得到具体讨论。文末 ,作者还对交易习惯在立法、执法和司法方面的具体实务提出了自己的看法。     

行政法上请求权的理论构造

公法请求权根源于并服务于基础性公法权利,但具备独立实体权利的要素,具有相对的独立性。确保或回复基础性公法权利不受干扰状态的干扰防御请求权和作为受益权核心内容的给付请求权是公法请求权的两种典型形态。公法请求权的确认和保护,对基础性公法权利的实现具有重要意义,只有实现对公法请求权的全面保护,方可实现对基础性公法权利的全面保护。我国应当通过立法和司法的革新措施促进公法请求权的行政法制保护,以提升公法权利的行政法保障水平：一方面,行政立法应当树立对公法请求权予以直接立法确认的理念;另一方面应通过行政诉讼制度的改革促进公法请求权的司法保护。     

刑法解释限度的理论构建:从价值优化论回归合法限度论

刑法解释限度,是指刑法文义解释所不能超越的、法律文本(刑法文本)所限定的文义界限和程度,以确保刑法解释对象和解释结论的合法性(限度)。刑法解释限度所欲解决的主要是刑法解释合法性问题,而不解决合理性与合目的性的问题。刑法解释限度的判断标准,应当以法律规范用语的语用学所可能确定的、符合国民预测可能性的语言意义为标准,可以简称为“语用意义的国民预测可能性说”。刑法解释限度的诠释学功能,是指刑法解释限度在诠释学上所具有的限定刑法解释合法性的功能,其特点是有限性和层级性。     

The Purpose of Legal Theory: Some Problems with Joseph Raz’s View

This article seeks to clarify Joseph Raz’s contention that the task of the legal theorist is to explain the nature of law, rather than the concept of law. For Raz, to explain the nature of law is to explain the necessary properties that constitute it, those which if absent law would cease to be what it is. The first issue arises regarding his ambiguous usage of the expression “necessary property”. Concurrently Raz affirms that the legal theorist has the following tasks: (a) explain the essential properties of that which the concept of law refers to, which exists independently from any concept of law; (b) explain the essential properties of law given our concept of law. After trying to dissolve the ambiguity of Raz’s argument, I conclude that based on his methodological commitments the only possible task for a legal philosopher would be conceptual analysis, understood as the task of explaining our concept of law.     

追问刑法精神

所谓刑法精神 ,是指贯穿于刑法之中 ,作为刑法之基的关于犯罪与刑罚的基本观念或理念。刑法典为刑法之形 ,刑法精神为刑法之魂。我国刑法在基本立场或基本精神上更加接近于古典派 ,更准确地说 ,是接近于新古典主义 ,带有明显的折衷或调和色彩。刑法精神(此处特指刑法典精神 )应当是一国整个刑事法律体系的基本精神 ,一国刑事法律体系的基本精神必须统一于刑法精神或曰刑法典精神     

Antitrust in China: The Problem of Incentive Compatibility

This paper reviews China's recent efforts to enact a competitionpolicy (antitrust) law. We focus on three issues: (1) What isthe substance of the proposed law, and how does it differ fromexisting antitrust law in other countries, (2) How will thelaw be implemented or enforced, and how will those who mustimplement this law interpret their mandate, and (3) What willbe the likely effects of this law given China's unique historyand cultural heritage. We emphasize China's economic, legaland regulatory contexts in which an antitrust law may be enforced.Our central focus is the problem of establishing a substantiveand procedural legal framework that is incentive-compatiblewith economic efficiency and growth. The draft law could beimproved, both to increase its clarity and to make its enforcementmore consistent with the goal of achieving improvements in economicefficiency. Nevertheless, there is much merit in the draft,especially its strong focus on reducing anticompetitive practicesof state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and other government bodies.However, our major difficulty with the new law is that, in theabsence of a tradition of reliance on the rule of law, Chineseand foreign enterprises will find it very difficult to relyon the antitrust statute or the actions of the courts in Chinaas a basis for predicting the antitrust liability that mightresult from various business practices. Therefore, the principalvector by which antitrust law (or indeed any law) affects economicbehavior is absent from the Chinese scene. Unless the bureaucracythat enforces the new antitrust law actively pursues a policyof consistent enforcement based on written guidelines, staredecisis, or other sources of predictability, the substance ofthe statute itself will have little significance. That outcomewould represent a significant loss for the economic welfareof the Chinese people.     

商事关系法律调整之研究——类型化路径与法体系分工

商事关系乃全部商法的基石概念。商法的研究不能回避商事关系的概念、构成及其法律调整机制。从主体类型化角度可将商事关系区分为四类:商主体与商主体之闻以营利为目的的商事关系;商主体与作为监管者的非商主体之间与营利相关的商事关系;商主体与作为消费者的非商主体之间基于商主体的营利目的而形成的商事关系以及非商主体与非商主体之间偶尔为之的营利性行为形成的商事关系。四此,商事关系可以界定为主体双方或一方基于营利性目的而形成的社会关系。营利性目的是衡量是否构成商事关系的本质,至于是否发生于平等主体之间,是否发生于持续营业之中,均非商事关系本质内涵。商事关系可以由商法调整但却不必都由商法调整,甚至可能根本不由法律调整。从主体类型化的角度理解商事关系的构成,不仅有助于商法理论知识的进化,也有助于我们撩开商法的面纱,现实地对待关于商法调整对象的困惑和商法法典化的神话。     

侵权责任法的法典化程度研究

由对大陆法系主要民法典之侵权责任法的法典化程度的比较研究和对我国有关侵权责任法草案及建议稿的法典化程度方面的实证分析看,有关侵权责任的立法应当处理好法律的高度抽象与具体列举的关系。在对我国现有侵权责任法规范进行盘点之后,文章就我国正在起草的侵权责任法应当列举的各种侵权责任以及各种特殊侵权责任关系、可救济的损害、对各种列举的侵权责任之规定的细化程度等问题提出了具有针对性的建议。     

What Is “Law,” if “the Law” Is not Something that “Is”? A Modest Contribution to a Major Question

After proposing an alternative definition of what “law” (jurisprudential concept) is, this article demonstrates the impossibility of identifying “the law” (what law‐makers announce, relative to a particular jurisdiction) as something that is in a particular way. Rather, the law is a more or less abstract range of options. Drawing upon this conclusion, the article calls for a reassessment of how we view the role of law‐makers. We need to remove the mystery that surrounds the law so as to provide for greater transparency. This transparency can be gained by requiring law‐makers to declare their inescapable biases where they influence their lawmaking.     

An optional European contract law code: Advantages and disadvantages

Should the EU introduce an Optional European Contract Law Code and what should it look like? By applying economic theories of federalism and regulatory competition (legal federalism), it is shown why an Optional Code would be a very suitable legal instrument within a two-level European System of Contract Laws. By allowing private parties’ choice of law to a certain extent, it can combine the most important advantages of centralisation and decentralisation of competences for legal rules. Through differentiated analyses of three kinds of contract law rules (mandatory substantive rules, mandatory information rules and facilitative law), important conclusions can be reached: which kinds of contract law rules are most suitable to be applied on an optional basis (e.g. facilitative law) and which might be less so (e.g. a core of information regulations). Furthermore a number of additional general conclusions about the design and scope of an Optional EU Code and some conclusions in regard to sales law are derived.     

The Inevitability of Moral Evaluation*

According to contemporary legal positivism, law claims to create obligations. In order for law to be able to create obligations, it must be capable of having authority. Legal positivism claims that for law to be capable of having authority, it only has to meet non‐moral or non‐normative conditions of authority. In this paper it is argued that law can only be capable of having authority if it also meets certain normative conditions. But if something must meet certain normative conditions in order to be capable of having authority and if it must be capable of having authority in order to be law, then it is only law if it is conceivable that it meets these normative conditions and this can only be ascertained by means of an evaluation. Therefore, legal positivism's claim that determining what the law is does not necessarily, or conceptually, depend on moral or other evaluative considerations (the separation thesis) is incompatible with its claim that law must be able to create obligations. Further, an analysis of Hart's concept of law shows that it is not only possible that the identification of the law depends on moral evaluation, as Hart claims, but that it is conceptually necessary that it does.     

Soft Law in the European Union—The Changing Nature of EU Law

This article is based on the assumption that there is a continuum running from non‐legal positions to legally binding and judicially controlled commitments with, in between these two opposite types of norms, commitments that can be described as soft law. It aims at defining soft law in international relations in order to provide a mapping of EU law on the basis of the soft law/hard law divide. It helps categorise EU competences and public policies, and sees how they fit with the distinction between two kinds of processes: legalisation (transformation of non‐legal norms into soft or hard law) and delegalisation (transformation of hard law norms into soft law and evolution from hard to soft law).     

国际民商事合同中的默示选法问题研究

在国际民商事合同的法律适用问题上,尊重当事人默示选法的意图,得到国内法与国际条约层面的广泛接受。但当事人默示选法在理论上还存在诸多争论。当事人的默示选法应当是对当事人业已存在的默示选法意图之认定,而不是对其选法意图的推定或假设,而且,当事人的默示选法在本质上是明示选法的一种特殊形式。在实践中,据以确定默示选法的因素包括仲裁(法院)选择条款、相关交易中的法律选择条款、在合同中"提及"或"并入"某国法律以及标准格式合同等。在认定当事人的默示选法时,应将上述指示因素以及合同和案件的整体情况综合起来一并考量。现有条约和国内法实践表明,对于默示选法的证明要求问题,各国尚未形成一致做法。我们应该在承认当事人默示选法的前提下,一方面要严格默示选法的证明要求,另一方面要进一步明确默示选法实施过程中应注意的相关难题。