Minimal Semantics and Legal Interpretation

In this paper I will tackle three issues. First, I aim to briefly outline the backbone of semantic minimalism, while focusing on the idea of ‘liberal truth conditions’ developed by Emma Borg in her book ‘Minimal Semantics’. Secondly, I will provide an account of the three principal views in legal interpretation: intentionalism, textualism and purposivism. All of them are based on a common denominator labelled by lawyers ‘literal meaning’. In the paper I suggest a novel way of viewing this common denominator as almost identical to the Borgian ‘liberal truth conditions’, at least at a conceptual level. In the third section I will focus on the conceptual similarities between the two ideas. I intend to depict that, although legal theorists do not admit it explicitly, they treat literal legal meaning as minimal propositional content that can be ascribed liberal truth conditions. There are two main objections to liberal truth conditions: their under-determinacy and unintuitive character. Both objections can be applied to ‘literal meaning’. However, the idea of liberal truth conditions gives an adequate account of what lawyers call literal meaning and is helpful in explaining the mechanism of understanding of provisions and reasons leading to the necessity of statutory interpretation.     

法学话语中的法律解释规则

法律解释方法的核心是法律解释规则,即各种理解、解释和运用法律的规则。几乎所有关于法律解释方法的理论,其目标都是探寻法律解释规则的构建与运用。为了证成这一判断,梳理与不同意识形态相匹配的具体法律方法很有必要。这种概括不是对法律方法纯粹历史的考察,重心在于说明法律解释规则的实践意义。我国的法律方法论研究即将进入第二个发展阶段,即在关注一般理论研究的基础上,开始法律解释规则及其运用研究。这是展现法学理论和法律方法论实用品格的开始。对法律解释规则的认识可以从多个角度展开,重点从法治意识形态、法律方法的进化以及与相近概念的比较三个方面进行诠释。     

Legal Truths and Falsities*

This paper has a two‐pronged thesis. First, laws should be understood as making factual claims about the moral order. Second, the truth or falsity of these claims depends as much on the content of the law as on whether the lawmaker has political authority. In particular, laws produced by legitimate authorities are successful as laws when they guide subjects' behavior by giving subjects authoritative reasons for action. This paper argues that laws produced by legitimate authorities accomplish this task (i) by being on their own sufficient to change the moral state of affairs, which (ii) thereby generates for people new moral reasons to act that they can read right off of the legislation.     

道德诚信与法律诚信的法理解读

诚实信用原则被誉为统帅整个民法领域的“帝王条款,”有利于保护与均衡民事主体的合法利益与社会利益,由此形成法益之平衡格局,并基于此推动商品经济的良性、健康、有序的运行。而这样一个目的价值的实现是诚信原则那复杂交织的道德属性与法律属性在博弈与契合的过程中所产生的能动司法功能对社会经济关系作用的结果。     

The Role of Culture in Legal Languages,Legal Interpretation and Legal Translation

The aim of this short essay is to highlight and concisely explore—but not address in depth—some cultural aspects related to legal languages, legal interpretation and legal translation. We would like to consider briefly the following questions: How can elements of legal language, as exemplified by proper names and euphemisms, be connected with cultural (extra-linguistic) factors influencing language units’ formation? How can judicial discourse reflect the culture of a given justice system? How can the legal interpretation affect the degree of legal culture? Are theories of legal interpretation universal or applicable to specific legal cultures? What is the impact of culture on the context of legal translation? How can the cultural background affect the decision to use terms in translation? How does cyberculture impact legal translation?

     

Legislative Basics of Legal Interpretation

The main purpose of legal interpretation is to create conditions for the effective functioning of law and its components by clarifying their true content, which eliminates any doubts and ambiguities. The purpose of this article is: first, to analyze the provisions of current Ukrainian legislation for identifying the general approaches embodied in it and the principles for the implementation of legal interpretation activities by state power bodies; secondly: presentation on the basis of modern achievements and developments of legal science of the system of measures for standardization of such activity, bringing it in line with the needs of law enforcement practice. The solution of the set tasks was carried out using the method of philosophical dialectics, a system of general scientific and special scientific methods of cognition, which are based on the principles of objectivity, comprehensiveness, complexity. Based on the analysis of the normative material, it is concluded that there is no single harmonized approach in the Ukrainian legislation on the procedure for providing clarifications of the content of normative-legal acts. The authors give arguments on the need to clarify and streamline the legal interpretation activity by state bodies and propose a number of measures to achieve this goal. Based on the conducted analysis of the normative material, the authors outline the main problematic issues of the legislative definition of the basics of legal interpretation and provide specific proposals for improving the current legislation in this area.

     

证券回购的法律解释

关于证券回购的法律性质,主要有抵押贷款说和附条件买卖说等两种做法和观点。两种不同法律性质的证券回购,在法律关系结构和法律风险方面存在着显著差异。基于我国目前的信用环境,同时着眼于交易主体利益之平衡以及金融风险的防范,将证券回购定性为附条件买卖乃现实的理性选择。     

公共利益的法律解读与界定

公共利益是一个使用频繁而意义重大的法律概念,其作用和意义在不同的法律中不完全相同,其内涵的不确定性给人们在实践中准确把握其范围带来了困难。国内外学者对如何界定公共利益的讨论,揭示了公共利益是不特定多数人的利益这一基本含义和内容的不确定性这一基本特征,并为合理界定公共利益指明了方向。在现代法治社会,公共利益在法律中的形成和界定,更多地应通过立法、行政、司法等法律程序确定。     

Levinasian Ethics and Legal Obligation*

Abstract. This paper discusses the implications of the ethical theory of Emmanuel Levinas for theoretical debates about legal obligation. I begin by examining the structure of moral reasoning in light of Levinas's account of ethics, looking particularly at the role of the “third party” (le tiers) in modifying Levinas's primary ethical structure of the “face to face” relation. I then argue that the primordial role of ethical experience in social discourse, as emphasised by Levinas, undermines theories, such as that of H. L. A. Hart, that propose a systematic distinction between legal and moral species of obligation.     

Legal Translation Versus Legal Interpretation. A Legal-Theoretical Perspective

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - In this article we investigate the relationship between legal translation and legal...     

Legal Meaning Assumptions – What are the Consequences for Legal Interpretation and Legal Translation?

In this article, I discusssimilarities and differences between legaltranslators and legal interpreters. Thediscussion is centred around the impact thatthe choice of background assumptions as tomeaning of linguistic items in legal texts hason the way lawyers and translatorsconceptualise their own work, respectively. Thedispute between proponents of a strong and aweaker approach to legal meaning in legalinterpretation is presented and the relationsto legal translation is investigated. By way ofconclusion I present some of the majorconsequences for legal translators of optingfor the empirically more easily justifiableweaker approach.     

金融衍生交易的法律解释——以合同为中心

金融衍生交易特别是场外衍生交易规则与传统民商法之间的冲突是大陆法系国家普遍存在的问题。衍生工具作为一种新的合同类型,与传统合同的显著区别在于"当前订约、未来履行",从中派生出特殊的履约风险、缔约风险等一系列新问题。对赌、显失公平等法律争议正是基于衍生合约本身的特性而产生;而通常被称为"衍生交易规则"的一整套制度实际上是市场自发创设的防范履约风险的安排。在此,场外衍生交易与场内衍生交易之间没有本质区别,英美法系与大陆法系需要应对同样的问题。通过还原衍生交易规则背后的法律逻辑,可以构筑一个以"合同"为中心的衍生交易法律问题的分析框架,容纳从合同效力、履行、缔约到信息披露、监管等一系列问题。以合同为主要处理对象的民商法应扩张自身的体系以容纳实践中产生的新合同类型,从而为整个金融衍生交易法律规则体系提供坚实的基础。     

论西方客观主义的法律解释传统

近代西方法治在司法上追求法律解释的客观性。客观主义的法律解释理念在西方法律文化中可谓根深蒂固。本文从法学知识论、哲学与政治基础和解释实践几个方面对这种解释传统进行了梳理、分析和评价。     

Inclusive Legal Positivism,Legal Interpretation,and Value‐Judgments

In this paper I put forward some arguments in defence of inclusive legal positivism. The general thesis that I defend is that inclusive positivism represents a more fruitful and interesting research program than that proposed by exclusive positivism. I introduce two arguments connected with legal interpretation in favour of my thesis. However, my opinion is that inclusive positivism does not sufficiently succeed in estranging itself from the more traditional legal positivist conceptions. This is the case, for instance, with regard to the value‐freedom principle, which is commonly accepted by inclusive positivist scholars. In contrast with this approach, I try to show, in the concluding section, how a constructivistic version of inclusive positivism could legitimately acknowledge the presence of value‐judgments in the cognitive activities of jurists and legal theorists.     

Beyond Inclusive Legal Positivism*

In this essay, I characterize the original intervention that became Inclusive Legal Positivism, defend it against a range of powerful objections, explain its contribution to jurisprudence, and display its limitations and its modest jurisprudential significance. I also show how in its original formulations ILP depends on three notions that are either mistaken or inessential to law: the separability thesis, the rule of recognition, and the idea of criteria of legality. The first is false and is in event inessential to legal positivism. The second is inessential to legal positivism. The third is likely inessential to law. I then characterize the central claim of ILP in a way that relies on none of these: ILP is the claim that necessarily social facts determine the determinants of legal content. I show that ILP so conceived leaves the central debates in law largely untouched. I suggest how the most fundamental of these—the question of the normativity of law—at least can be usefully addressed. The essay closes by suggesting that even though one can distinguish the social from the normative dimensions of law, a theory of the nature of law is necessarily an account of the relationship between the two: It is a theory either of the difference that certain distinctive social facts make in normative space, or it is an account of the distinctive normative difference that law makes, and the social and other facts that are necessary to explain that difference. One can distinguish between but one cannot separate the social from the normative aspects of legality.     

检察职能延伸的法理解读

检察职能延伸是检察机关为适应不断变化发展的社会现实,及时有效履行打击和预防犯罪、服务社会所进行的检察机制及检察职能改革,检察职能延伸也是社会管理创新的具体实践。实际应用中往往囿于认识局限而制约了其实际效果的发挥,也引起褒贬不一的评价。本文试图通过解析检察职能延伸范围、意义及法理依据,明晰检察职能的定位,并对检察职能延伸提出了进一步完善的相关建议。     

论法律解释的融贯性——评德沃金的法律真理观

以融贯性作为检验法律真理的标准,是一种超越真理观上的绝对主义与相对主义立场的尝试。德沃金的法律解释思想以融贯论作为法律真理观,以罗尔斯的"反思性均衡"作为法律解释的方法,以信念之间、信念和经验之间的融贯性作为法律解释的标准,从而为"法律唯一正解"提供了哲学上的正当化根据。但是,原则之间的竞争与冲突是不容否定的事实,并不存在理想意义上的融贯;法官的类推解释只能达致局部融贯而无法形成整体融贯;法律的无穷解释使德沃金的解释理论陷入无法自拔的"明希豪森困境",这些理论上的难题使德沃金的法律真理图景成为一种虚假的幻相。     

中外合作办学问题的法律解读

中外合作办学是我国教育走向国际化而出现的一种新的办学形式,在我国的教育事业中占有重要地位。基于《中外合作办学条例》等相关法律进行分析,应当认为,培养人才与取得回报是中外合作办学的重要目标,举办项目与设立机构是中外合作办学的基本形式,立足本土与引进外源是中外合作办学的教育内容,继承传统与改革创新是中外合作办学的发展要求,政府监管与社会制约是中外合作办学的调控力量。     

法教义学中法律解释性命题的可接受性证立

法教义学研究是对实在法尤其是实在法规则进行解释和体系化的研究,法律解释性是法教义学考察的核心命题,是对规范陈述在具体案件事实当中意义的研究。法律解释性命题的有效性证立除了需要满足自我证立的融贯性要求之外,也要符合相关理性论辩规则的规制,尤其需要满足可接受性法律证立的修辞论证需要。解释性法律命题的有效性是以法律解释结果的可接受性为基础的,阿尔尼奥的法律解释证立理论正是在此探讨理路上展开的。