“摸着石头过河”与“可改可不改的不改”——改革背景下的当代中国宪法变迁

本文从＂良性违宪＂学说的萌发,法学界对于该理论的回应,直至＂宪法变通与地方试验＂说的提出,来对相关宪法变迁理论进行一个初步梳理和反思。文章指出：＂良性违宪＂行为的产生,除了宪法技术和分权机制的原因,还和＂摸着石头过河＂的制度突破模式与＂可改可不改的不改＂之宪法修改模式的相互冲突有关,而这种冲突的根源,则正在于改革本身;同时,这种表面上的冲突,实际上恰恰构成了改革时代宪法变迁模式的内在理路：从制度试验到推及全国到党的理论到宪法确认。     

The 'Checks and Balances' Doctrine in Member States as a Rule of EC Law: The Cases of France and Germany

Abstract: Though the impact of EC law on the legal status of national powers has been fairly well examined, little attention has been paid to the overall evaluation of the relations developed between national authorities. The paper argues that the mutation of the Judiciary and the Executive role vis‐à‐vis the Legislature appears to be an application of an emerging doctrine in EC public law that conspicuously resembles the ‘Checks and Balances’ theory of American constitutionalism. The action of one public authority is—or must be—countered by the reaction of another for the benefit of EC law. Apart from identifying the features of this ‘principle’ in comparison to its equivalent American doctrine, the paper deals with the question of a possible coexistence of this new model of governance with the traditional one. The comparative perspective is necessary here. Whereas in Germany the constitutional model appears to cope with European demands, in France it seems largely opposed to such a dynamic conception of the separation of powers.     

试论孙中山先生“五权宪法”思想体系的构成要素

孙中山先生“五权宪法”思想体系的构成要素,主要包括：“五权宪法”的法理——三民主义;“五权宪法”的形式——五权分立制;“五权宪法”的基础——权能分开说;“五权宪法”的实现——革命程序论。     

Human Dignity and Socio-Economic Rights

The South African Constitution numbers among a very few constitutions around the world which include justiciable socio-economic rights. One of the controversies surrounding judicial enforcement of such rights is the extent to which it is appropriate for courts to engage in policy choices in relation to the use of state resources in light of the doctrine of the separation of powers. The South African Constitutional Court has responded by developing an approach to adjudication of socio-economic rights in which the role of the court is to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of measures taken by the legislature and executive to implement such rights. However, the South African Constitution is also notable for its identification of human dignity as an underlying value and the explicit duty placed on the courts to interpret the rights protected under the Bill of Rights in conformity with this value. This article scrutinises the socio-economic rights jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional court in light of the Constitutional commitment to human dignity. It questions whether reasonableness review in socio-economic cases successfully balances human dignity with the appropriate degree of deference to the legislature and executive, in compliance with the doctrine of the separation of powers.     

When Trumps Clash: Dworkin and the Doctrine of Proportionality

If there is one point on which defenders and critics of the doctrine of proportionality agree, it is that Dworkin's rights as trumps model stands as a radical alternative to the doctrine. Those who are sympathetic to proportionality reject the rights as trumps model for failing to acknowledge that there are conditions under which a right may be justifiably infringed. In turn, those who regard rights as trumps reject the doctrine of proportionality for failing to take rights seriously. This paper argues that each of these views is mistaken. On the one hand, Dworkin's rights as trumps model elides with a prominent version of the proportionality doctrine. On the other, this version takes rights seriously.     

论中央与地方立法权限的划分标准——基于公共服务理论的研究

实定法所确立的中央与地方立法权限的划分标准尚有缺陷,不能适应各地方因地制宜的治理需求。已有学理研究成果过于"重技术"而"轻理论",缺乏深层次的价值指引,难以回应以上现实困境。公共服务理论为解决央地立法权限的划分问题提供了全新视角。在公共服务理论下,国家长久执政的正当性前提在于向人民提供良好的公共服务,国家行使立法权的目的在于组织公共服务,央地立法权限的划分同样应以公共服务为中心。中央立法的定位系制定为提供公共服务所设置国家机构、组织、制度等内容的框架性法律和部分直接规范公共服务的组织、运行的细则性法律,地方立法则系制定细则性法律。央地之间细则性立法事项的权限划分应当以"便利服务"为标准。     

End-of-life decision-making, the principle of double effect, and the devil's choice: a response to Roger Magnusson

Recently, the principle of double effect has come under scrutiny by Magnusson who believes it provides a subterfuge for those who act so as to end the lives of their patients. Specifically, he argues that the conceptual distinction between foresight and intention is dubious and, moreover, renders patients vulnerable to involuntary euthanasia. At the same time, Magnusson wants to protect doctors from criminal liability when faced with (what he understands to be) a "devil's choice" between ending the life of a patient or under-treating pain. Hence, Magnusson proposes that, subject to specific conditions, a so-called "defence of necessity" be recognised through either common law doctrine or legislation. However, to safeguard this defence, he must rely on what he most wants to reject: a fundamental aspect of the principle of double effect.     

立法与行政的权限分配

所谓立法与行政的权限分配即是理顺法的制定与执行之间的上下游关系,本质是权力等级序列问题,它与权力分立语境下机关之间的监督与制约关系并非一回事。所有的立法与行政权限分配方式都可以总结为分离型与下降型两种模型,其中分离型又可以细分为双重分离型、立法与行政分离型和立法分离型。"分离"意味着要么是限制下游,要么是限制上游。对学说、实务、规范三者进行彻底分析可以得知,我国立法与行政的权限分配应当是一种立法分离型结构。立法权自身分离给立法机关与行政机关,但这种分离是限制下游式,受到制约的是行政立法而不是法律;相反,行政权则是立法权的下降,既不应当存在自主行政行为,也不应当限制立法作具体措施。     

自然资源国家所有权三层结构说

宪法上规定的自然资源国家所有权不是专属于公法的所有权概念。它包含三层结构：第一层结构是私法权能。在这一层面上,它与物权法上的所有权无异。第二层结构是公法权能。其主要包括国家对于自然资源的立法权、管理权和收益分配权。第三层结构是宪法义务。国家应当为全体人民的利益行使其私法权能和公法权能。公共信托理论是描述国家作为自然资源所有人的宪法义务的法律理论,应当引入中国,或者对中国宪法第9条作公共信托理论式的解释,确立国家与人民在自然资源国家所有权结构中的地位。在中国的现实中,自然资源国家所有权最为薄弱的层面是其宪法义务。 “自然资源人民基金”的模式和尝试对中国有借鉴意义。宪法规定的自然资源所有权具有“不完全规范”的特质,直接转化为物权法上的物权存在困难。在目前宪法控制制度尚不健全的情况下,民法解释学可以发挥控制自然资源国家所有权肆意扩张和扭曲的准宪法功能。     

Implementing Security Council Resolutions in Hong Kong: An Examination of the United Nations Sanctions Ordinance

The United Nations Sanctions Ordinance is the primary legalbasis of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)for implementing the United Nations Security Council's resolutions.However, there are concerns that the Ordinance is potentiallyviolating the separation of powers in its delegation of regulation-makingauthority to the executive. There are also criticisms againstthe expediency of the Ordinance as a mechanism for enforcingSecurity Council sanctions. Against this background, this paperattempts to examine the separation of powers doctrine, its placein HKSAR's constitutional system and its relevance to the Ordinance.On the issue of expediency, this paper focuses on the scopeand speed of implementing the sanctions, and the human rightsand criminal justice problems it involves. For comparative purposes,references are to be made to the law of the USA, Canada andSingapore.     

犯罪构成四要件说的缺陷:实务考察

从实务的立场上看,在我国处于通说地位的犯罪构成"四要件说"存在诸多弊端:其只能静止地看待犯罪成立的条件,无法展示定罪过程,难以对行为从不同侧面、不同层次进行反复推敲和检验;容易根据形式判断得出结论;不重视法益保护的观念;过于重视行为人的意思;不能妥善处理共犯论的问题;难以实现积极的一般预防。为回应司法实务的需要,使对犯罪的认定更为精准,对"四要件说"进行"阶层化"改造乃是大势所趋。     

集中与分权的历史逻辑——“共同纲领”时期我国宪制的建构、运行与更张

1949年《共同纲领》与《政府组织法》共同确立了堪称"四九宪制"的国家权力配置基本格局。与以苏联为代表的社会主义宪法传统不同,四九宪制虽然同奉议行合一原理为圭臬,却有自己的独特创造,表现为通过中央人民政府主席这一职位实现议、行两端的权力集中。然而决策权与执行权在规范层面的分工模糊与权能交叠,使四九宪制在实际运行中无法确保中央人民政府主席对国家事务直接和经常的领导。随着机构改革与权力重组的受挫,这一时期宪制的制度弹性逐渐耗尽,新政权的缔造者们最终通过在1954年《宪法》中对最高国务会议制度的设计实现了对议行合一体制的重设。     

论人的道德权利与社会变革的合法性——反思孟子心性论的人文价值

在"孔孟之道"所象征的儒家文化传统中,"孔仁孟义"中的"义"和"思孟学派"中的"心性"都与孟子的思想人格紧密关联。"义"具有"天下道义"的奥义,它对于"家"中的"亲长"权力和"国"中的"君父"权力均有神圣的超越性,常以"大义灭亲"和"替天行道"标而出之;"心性"则是对《中庸》"性命"观念的创造性转化,突出了儒家的认识论和宇宙论的主体性与伦理性。在孟子思想体系中,"心性"与"道义"的结合,揭示出了人的普遍道德权利和伦理义务,也蕴含着其对天子、国君和权臣的世俗权力的伦理性超越和限制,其辩证的结论就是:当世俗权力侵害普遍道德权利时,社会变革就成为维护人的普遍道德权利的必然而正当的选择。     

政治问题理论的衰落与重构

政治问题作为可推翻的"自然推定",属于可诉性理论的阻却事由要件。其理论发轫于联邦党人对宪法"特定条款"的阐述。为了应对将政治问题理论区分为经典形式与审慎形式所带来的司法操作性难题,布伦南大法官通过描述政治问题的六个特征,构建了政治问题的确认标准。然而,法院在适用政治问题确认标准的过程中所形成的政治问题理论的循环悖论,以及学界对政治问题理论存在合理性的质疑使得其经典形式出现变异、审慎形式日渐消亡。在激励相容理论基础上重构政治问题理论,可以尝试化解学界对政治问题免于司法审查理论基础的种种非议。     

宪法中的战争权

人民主权理论决定了战争决定权应由议会行使。战争宣布权一般属于国家元首。战争指挥权由最高行政长官掌握,是军事统帅权而不是军事统率权。战争执行权主要属于政府及其有关部门。最高军令权和军政权属于总统或首相;此外的军令权属于军官,军政权属于文官,在许多国家二者统属于国防部。在战争的决定权、宣布权、指挥权和执行权中,战争的决定权和指挥权（以及彼此的关系）是最重要的,也是宪法重点规范的对象。     

论网络空间自卫权的行使对象问题

网络攻击往往由非国家行为体发起,实践中亦罕见有国家主动承认对网络攻击负责的实例。相应地,由于网络攻击的溯源存在技术、政治和法律方面的难题,受害国很难在传统自卫权的框架下对来自他国的网络攻击行使自卫权。非国家行为体尚不能构成传统武力攻击情境下的自卫权行使对象,更不宜成为网络空间自卫权的行使对象。作为替代,近年来将"不能够或不愿意"理论适用于网络空间自卫权的主张"甚嚣尘上"。"不能够或不愿意"理论表面上具有一定的正当性,但从既有国家归因标准和常规的自卫必要性的角度来看,该理论本质上缺乏实然法层面的法律依据,而且在适用时将面临一系列的法律不确定性。中国在参与网络空间国际造法的进程中,应当警惕将非国家行为体作为网络空间自卫权行使对象的主张,并应努力防止"不能够或不愿意"理论的引入和滥用,以遏制网络空间的军事化。     

Hans Kelsen's Doctrine of Imputation

First, the author examines the traditional doctrine of imputation. A look at the traditional doctrine is useful for establishing a point of departure in comparing Kelsen's doctrines of central and peripheral imputation. Second, the author turns to central imputation. Here Kelsen's doctrine follows the traditional doctrine in attributing liability or responsibility to the subject. Kelsen's legal subject, however, has been depersonalized and thus requires radical qualification. Third, the author takes up peripheral imputation, which is the main focus of the paper. It is argued that with respect to the basic form of the law, exhibited by the linking of legal condition with legal consequence, peripheral imputation counts as an austere doctrine, shorn as it is of all references to legal personality or the legal subject. If Kelsen's reconstructed legal norms are empowerments, then the austere doctrine of peripheral imputation captures the rudiments of their form, exactly what would be expected if peripheral imputation does indeed serve as the category of legal cognition. Finally, the author develops the puzzle surrounding the legal "ought" in this context. Although Kelsen talks at one point as though the legal "ought" were the peculiarly legal category, the author submits that this is not the best reading of Kelsen's texts.     

Devolution and its Jurisdictional Asymmetries

The devolution of legislative and executive powers to the different parts of the United Kingdom has meant that, because of the asymmetric arrangements made, there has been an increase in policy divergence from one part to another. Some of this has been intended, some unintended. With reference, in particular, to Scotland and Wales this article focuses on the asymmetric consequences of devolution which derive specifically from the jurisdictional or 'legal system' differences across the United Kingdom. These affect the conditions under which law-making powers may be devolved, the 'management' of devolution and the rights enjoyed by citizens. It is argued that the devolution of 'legal system' competence carries with it problems quite different from those associated with the devolution of other powers.     

Doctors and hospitals: an antitrust perspective on traditional relationships

Under new pressures for cost containment, hospitals are increasingly asserting interests that conflict with those of physicians. Professor Havighurst argues that legal rules under which practitioners have challenged denials of hospital admitting privileges should be clarified in order that hospitals can more effectively carry out their new cost-containment and other responsibilities. He invokes antitrust law's "essential-facilities" doctrine to protect those abused by their competitors on a hospital staff, but he contends that, if a hospital participates in decisionmaking as an independent actor--even though it acts in concert with its physicians--, antitrust courts should lower the level of scrutiny to a point at which most challenges can be dismissed summarily. He analogizes restraints imposed by hospitals on competition between health professionals to vertical restraints of other kinds, and draws conclusions critical of doctrine traditionally applicable to the latter.