财产所有权的正当性依据

所有权作为权利 ,其含义不是指人对物的占有或支配状态或形式 ,也不是指物主对物的占有支配的自由 ,而是指 :对于他人而言 ,物主个人、社会群体、国家三重意志共同主张物主对物的自由支配的不可侵犯性。所有权的不可侵犯性在于 ,物主获得物 (所有权的对象物 )的方式是对他人无害的 ,以致是他人所同意的。财产所有权得以确立的核心和关键是社会群体根据无害性义务准则而给予的一致公认。     

论耕地的法律保护

耕地是土地的精华 ,保护耕地是事关全国大局和中华民族子孙后代的大问题 ,永远忽视和放松不得。笔者认为 ,耕地保护的基本目标是耕地总量动态平衡 ,耕地特殊保护应以土地利用规划为依据 ,严格实行耕地的法律管制 ,惩处非法占用行为     

论地方事务设定的合法性要件

针对地方事务的初次分配(设定),长期由国务院等中央行政机关负责的实践传统不能取代有限制性规定的现行法律。按照这些合法性要件,在设定主体上,全国人大及其常委会和经授权的国务院有权设定地方事务。同时,为适应综合治理的需求,1985年关于经济体制改革的授权决定应及时增补其他领域。在规范形式上,只有宪法、法律与依行政法规程序制定的暂行规定或条例可以胜任;并且要以宪法为依据,以法律为主体,提高人大立法的比重,控制授权立法。在制修程序上,代表团得充分行使提案权,为地方事务的设定发声;“中央和地方协商办事”的治理原则须转化为法定程序,以便地方意见的收集。     

Rethinking the Wrongness Constraint on Criminalisation

Orthodox thought holds that criminalisation should be subject to a wrongness constraint: that is, that conduct may be criminalised only if it is wrongful. This article argues that this principle is false, at least as it is usually understood. On the one hand, the wrongness constraint seems to rest on solid foundations. To criminalise conduct is to facilitate its condemnation and punishment; to coerce citizens against it; and to portray it as wrongful. All of these actions are presumptively impermissible when the conduct that they target is not wrongful. On the other hand, the article argues that the wrongness constraint is nevertheless unsound. Although it is presumptively impermissible to criminalise non-wrongful conduct, this might yet be permissible, given sufficient countervailing reasons. Moreover, there are realistic cases – specifically, some cases of over-inclusive criminalisation – in which such countervailing reasons exist.     

论经济法之法律目的

法律目的是主体在特定的法律理念的指导下,根据其对特定的法律部门和法律规范的功能需求,从可供选择的法律价值名目体系中,为特定的法律部门和法律规范所选择并设定的价值目标。部门法法律目的是其所属的法律规范的法律目的之抽象概括,它统率该部门全部法律规范之法律目的的内容、形式和结构。经济法部门之法律目的中的“正义、秩序、效益”的含义与传统民法部门、行政法部门存在显著差异,经济法应当属于独立的法律部门。     

论保险合同之法定解除权

2009年2月28日,十一届全国人大常委会第七次会议通过了《中华人民共和国保险法》（以下简称《保险法》）修订草案。2009年10月1日新修订的《保险法》正式实施。本文从保险合同法定解除权入手,对新修订的《保险法》中关于保险人法定解除权的行使、限制以及完善进行简要论述。     

论比例原则的正当性基础

比例原则的概念产生于19世纪的德国,但合比例性思想却历史悠久,普见于世界各国,与此相关的正义、平等、自由、效率均为其正当的基础。可以说,比例原则是对实质正义和个案正义的追求,是对限制自由的限制,是平等的一个具体量度,是对效益追求与人权保障的调和。     

The Criminalisation of Russian State Security

While the Russian authorities may seek to talk up the role their security apparatus plays in combating organised crime, in fact, they are to a large extent falling prey to criminalisation. A culture of corruption and a decade of neglect have combined to create a situation in which not only do police, army, and security officers provide services to ‘civilian’ criminals but organised crime groupings have actually formed within them. These gangs tend to be defined by their location and legal powers, both of which can be abused for criminal ends, and they include police and military officers at the very apex of their respective command structures. There are grounds for hope now that President Putin is beginning to become aware of the practical dangers this poses for Russian national security, not least given the haemorrhage of weapons to criminal and insurgent hands, but, for the immediate future, the security apparatus will remain corrupted and criminalised.     

The Wrongfulness Constraint in Criminalisation

If conduct must be wrongful in order to be justifiably criminalised, how should its wrongfulness be established? I examine a conception of wrongfulness put forward by A. P. Simester, which makes wrongfulness turn on whether the reasons favouring the performance of an action are, all things considered, defeated by the reasons against its performance. I argue that such a view can only generate appropriate substantive constraints in the context of criminalisation if it can distinguish between the sorts of reasons that a verdict of wrongfulness, as a concept distinct from stupidity or selfishness, should attend to, and the sorts of reasons it should leave out. Assuming that this conception of wrongfulness should operate as a constraint on criminalisation in a liberal-democratic state, the only reasons it should include are other-regarding reasons. What matters is whether the agent commits an other-regarding wrong. This conception of wrongfulness helps us further to resolve fundamental questions concerning mala prohibita and the legitimate reach of any duty to obey the law.     

论宪法诉讼目的的多维性

宪法诉讼的目的是一国立宪主体建立宪法诉讼制度所期待达到的效果.目的论是宪法诉讼法学中基础性与前提性的范畴,对其研究不仅具有理论价值,而且更富实践意义.宪法诉讼目的具有多维性:民主瑕疵之补救、程序正义之实现、基本人权之保障、失范权力之矫正、政治和谐之建构.上述目的最终归结于宪法诉讼的终极目的--宪治国家之建构.     

On the Legitimate Basis of Criminal Liability Affected by Victims＇ Wrong

有关被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据主要存在“风险创设”、“比较过错”、“值得保护”以及“自我答责”、“期待可能性”几种代表性的理论.这些理论在一定程度上说明了被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当性基础,但这些理论的共同缺陷在于:首先,脱离刑事责任的内在结构本身,片面地理解犯罪构成对刑事责任的决定性作用；其次,将被害人过错理解为纯客观情境因素,无视被害人这一“人”的能动要素对犯罪构成各个层面的复杂、全面的影响.因此,这些理论的解释力和说明性都是有限的.只有从刑事责任的内在构造人手,分析被害人过错对刑事责任内在构成要素的全面影响,才能真正探寻到被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据.     

论被害人过错影响刑事责任之正当依据

有关被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据主要存在"风险创设"、"比较过错"、"值得保护"以及"自我答责"、"期待可能性"几种代表性的理论。这些理论在一定程度上说明了被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当性基础,但这些理论的共同缺陷在于:首先,脱离刑事责任的内在结构本身,片面地理解犯罪构成对刑事责任的决定性作用;其次,将被害人过错理解为纯客观情境因素,无视被害人这一"人"的能动要素对犯罪构成各个层面的复杂、全面的影响。因此,这些理论的解释力和说明性都是有限的。只有从刑事责任的内在构造入手,分析被害人过错对刑事责任内在构成要素的全面影响,才能真正探寻到被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据。     

民事程序选择权的正当性分析

导源于程序主体性原则的民事程序选择权在推行市场经济和实施依法治国方略的今天,具有重大意义。文章在阐释了民事程序选择权的含义之后,从其理论基础、价值透视以及制约因素方面,深入地分析了民事程序选择权的正当性。     

Harm and Wrongdoing in Criminalisation Theory

Contemporary theories of criminalisation address, with varying emphasis, themes concerning the harmfulness and the wrongfulness of the conduct. In his article for the present issue, Antony Duff relies chiefly on notions of wrongfulness as the basis for his proposed criminalisation doctrines; whereas in their 2011 volume on criminalisation, Andrew Simester and Andreas von Hirsch invoke both wrongfulness and harmfulness as prerequisites for prohibiting conduct. The present article assesses the comparative merits of these approaches, and argues in favour of the latter, two-element perspective. In this article, the author puts forward a number of reasons suggesting why the two-element approach (of wrongfulness and harm) is preferable. These reasons include, firstly, an inductive argument—that the kinds of wrongful conduct for which criminalisation seems a plausible response are those that include an element of harm or risk of harm. Secondly, a defining role for the state is one of resource-protection: of safeguarding the means and resources through which citizens can live good lives. Thus the concept of citizens’ living resources—and the related conception of harm—should be made a constitutive and explicit element of criminalisation theory, rather than subsuming resource-protection under a general rubric of wrongfulness. Thirdly, a two-element approach provides reciprocal limiting principles concerning the scope of criminalisation. One can, for example, employ wrongfulness requirements to limit the criminalisation of conduct that has remote harmful consequences; and, conversely, use a harmfulness requirement as means for restricting the criminalisation of wrongful acts.     

Historicising Criminalisation: Conceptual and Empirical Issues

This paper charts a renaissance in scholarly analysis of criminalisation, and suggests that we do not have the conceptual tools or empirical knowledge to make the claims about 'overcriminalisation' which motivate much of this scholarship. My argument gives further shape to projects under the umbrella of criminalisation, setting out some of the conceptual issues to be resolved before we can work towards an adequate interpretive, and normative, vision of how criminal law has been and might be used. The paper elaborates a number of projects in 'criminalisation scholarship', and suggests there is a failure adequately to distinguish the different senses of 'criminalisation' in the literature, or the varying methods which might be applied within historical, interpretive, analytic and normative studies of criminalisation. In conclusion, the paper argues for a certain genre of criminalisation scholarship, and for a multi-disciplinary criminalisation research agenda informed by history, sociology and political science as much as by law, criminology and philosophy.     

地方立法的基本目标和对策建议——以浙江省为视角

中国特色社会主义法律体系的形成,对地方立法提出了新的更高要求。新形势下,地方立法指导思想和重点要着力实现"四个转变"。要以科学发展观为指导,不断创新地方立法理念;以推动科学发展、全面建成惠及全体人民的小康社会为宗旨,进一步突出立法工作重点;以尊重立法规律、遵循立法规则为准则,进一步坚持和完善立法工作原则;以推进创新、完善机制为途径,进一步增强地方立法工作的生机和活力。     

论国际私法对弱者正当权益的保护

保护弱者正当权益已成为各国法律发展的一个趋势。国际私法也把保护弱者正当权益作为一项重要原则。     

Global Governance,Criminalisation and Environmental Change

This article examines the environmental impact of criminalisation. It argues that developing societies are increasingly drawn into globalised networks that inextricably link the global and local, the legal and illegal. This means that in order to understand the causes of environmental degradation it is no longer useful to focus on the formal institutions and practices of government and business. Instead, this article uses the concept of the shadow state to examine and understand the causes of environmental change in two illustrative cases of Madagascar and Belize.