对程序正义与实体正义之冲突关系的质疑

正义本身就是一个标表各种相互冲突的利益被合理平衡的概念,这种平衡可能动态地体现在某种程序中,也可能静态地体现在某一结果中,因此只存在程序是否合乎正义,结果是否合乎正义的问题,并不存在程序合乎“程序正义”,结果合乎“实体正义”的分别。人权保障和真实发现都是程序所必须平衡的利益要求,它们之间的冲突不应被理解为程序正义与实体正义的冲突。程序正义是结果正义的根据,它们之间也不存在冲突。     

环境法上的公正

环境法的公正具有自己的特征,环境法上存在着区域公正,国际公正,社会公正和代际公正。区域公正是指在相关区域环境权利与义务的分配是否恰当平衡。国际公正涉及国与国之间享有环境的权利和国际环境义务的分担。社会公正要求将环境行为置于社会背景下认识和解决。代际公正要求现实环境问题的解决方案要考虑到下代人的利益。     

Justice Here and Now: A Personal Reflection on the Restorative and Community Justice Paradigms

Cuba has long had one of the lowest crime rates in Latin America and in the Americas generally. Incidents of crime against women such as rape and domestic violence, for example, appear to be lower in Cuba than in the rest of Latin America and the United States. Community organizations in Cuba play a significant role in controlling criminal activity by generating and sustaining citizen participation, generating an understanding of the nature of community crime, and helping to form partnerships for community policing. Cuba has attempted to obtain citizen participation in order to resolve social problems, including crime, by instilling a sense of community among its citizens and providing them with the structure of mass organizations that mobilize people on local, regional, and national levels. Residents attribute Cuba’s relatively low crime rate to the sense of community created and maintained by such mass organizations. This article focuses on the role that mass organizations and especially Committees for the Defense of the Revolution play in the Cuban experience of community policing and justice.     

An Expansive,Transformative View of Restorative Justice

This article addresses two distinct but related concerns. The first section argues for adoption of a wide‐ranging conceptualization of restorative justice, one that encompasses concern for community, structural, economic and social levels of attention, as well as personal and direct consideration for parties to crimes and conflicts. It is a view of restorative justice, like that espoused by Sullivan and Tifft, that is transformative in conception, ambition, and operation. It is based on awareness that making distinctions between restorative and community justice may be useful for some purposes but expresses a preference for thinking of these two perspectives as part of a larger whole. The second part of the article highlights 10 values or principles that may help guide the development and implementation of an expansive view of restorative justice. It suggests that a person who wishes to pursue a more peaceful and just world should be ethically engaged, behave in an exemplary fashion, beware of and avoid exploitation, fully embrace equality, be empathic, act so as to empower oneself and others, recognize the entwinement of all people and the earth, select interventions that are effectual while being error‐aware, appreciate that ends and means are enmeshed, and act with earnest enthusiasm.     

Juvenile Justice in Oregon: Balanced and Restorative Justice in Action

The goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) are to hold juvenile offenders meaningfully accountable, hear and empower crime victims and engage communities both as stakeholders who have been negatively impacted and as advocates to make things right for the crime victim, offender, and community. This article examines how several Oregon juvenile justice agencies have put BARJ into action over the last 25 years, highlighting specific examples of how several agencies have made this the philosophical underpinning of their work. An overview of the philosophical principles, values, and goals that drive this approach is also discussed.     

公正立法与立法公开

公正立法在本质上是一种现代立法理念,在追求立法价值公正的同时,也追求立法程序的公正和立法结果的公正。公正的立法是在公正价值的指导下通过公正的程序而实现的。立法公开不仅是程序公正的组成部分,也是走向公正立法的重要途径。     

立法公正的实现与保障机制

立法公正不仅包括立法程序上的公正 ,还包括立法的实体公正 ,而立法实体的公正则是经由程序公正而获得的。立法程序公正的基本要件是程序公开、程序参与、程序自治、程序中立、程序效率等。实现立法公正要进一步完善公众立法的直接参与制度、立法公开制度、立法回避制度以及立法听证制度等     

复和正义和刑事调解

犯罪自产生以来 ,其恶性随着人类文明的进步而加大 ,相反 ,人类用于对付犯罪的刑罚手段却渐趋轻缓和文明。毫无疑问 ,到目前为止 ,刑罚仍是对付犯罪最为有效的手段之一 ,审判也是解决犯罪问题的主要方式。但由于建立在报应基础之上的刑罚 ,本质上是一种“以恶制恶” ,因此 ,其弊端也是显而易见的。由此 ,在处理犯罪问题时需要引入复和正义 ,并进一步扩大刑事调解范围     

论法官的道德素质与司法公正

法官良好的道德素质是实现司法公正的必要主观条件之一。法官的道德素质状况既影响着实体公正 ,又影响着程序公正和形象公正。良好的道德素质使司法公正成为法官坚定的职业信仰和自觉的职业追求 ,使公正司法成为法官自愿的职业惯性行为。多方加强法官队伍职业道德建设是司法公正的客观要求。     

论作为第三种规范的法律正义

将法、正义、法律正义视为同一事物的意念 ,是一个需待澄清的误解性意念。法、正义、法律正义不仅有重合会通的一面 ,更有各自的界限。法是一种常见的制度规范 ,正义是一种高层次伦理规范 ,而法律正义则是融合了法和正义两种要素的第三种规范。法律正义也是一种正义 ,是正义中的基本正义、有形正义和正义中的强者。法律正义也是一种法律规范 ,是高层次法律规范 ,是区别于恶法劣法的良规良法 ,是理想和现实相结合的法律规范。明辨三者的界限 ,方能洞知法有良恶优劣的分别 ,完整地认知法的面貌 ,倾力于建设以良法美制为基础的现代法治国家     

Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment

Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper are two recent attempts, by Thomas Hurka and Michael Cholbi respectively, to defend the view that ‘levelling down’ (that is, reducing the punishment imposed on a criminal from the punishment he absolutely deserves to a less severe punishment in order to achieve proportionality relative to the criminals who have escaped the punishment they absolutely deserve) is, in the context of capital punishment, morally permissible. We argue that both Hurka and Cholbi fail to show why the arbitrariness and discrimination objection impugns the death penalty.

自媒体时代的刑事司法与民意

相对于传统的自上而下的传播模式,“自媒体”更多地体现出一种传播的对等性,更加注重网民的自主性,表现出个性化、互动性的特征,更易引发刑事司法与民意之间的紧张关系。涉弱势群体的刑事个案更易引发民众的关注、民意的表达更为通畅与开放、民意的表达忽略了案件事实与法律适用本身、民意的真实性有待考证,这是自媒体时代的民意的主要特征。在自媒体环境下,民意推动了刑事诉讼程序的公开、公正进行,有助于刑事司法判决朝着更为公正、合理的方向发展,不理性的民意对部分刑事案件的错判、误判的影响仍然不能忽视,民意对刑事司法的影响呈现出无序性。营造刑事司法与民意互动的良性循环需要注意：建立及时的信息发布、沟通机制,对自媒体进行必要的约束,发挥自媒体对民意的引导、培育功能。构建公平有序的社会制度。     

Decision Making and Justice

This article considers how judges can improve decision making, especially in cases that involve children in the family court. It looks specifically at improvements that are being implemented in England and Wales following a major review of family justice in 2011. All judges need to be well‐trained and well‐informed if they are to make the best‐quality decisions they can. Three principles underpin the approach to improving judicial decision making, which must be systematic, evidence based, and tested, and the evidence that informs judicial decisions must be robust. Collaboration among professionals in the development of good practice, its dissemination, and its application should be the acknowledged goal, and it should involve the views and perceptions of the young people and families involved.     

程序正义及其局限性

程序正义是现代法的程序结构派生出的一种伦理形态 ,其本质为程序之中的伦理、非人格化的伦理、相对化和形式化的伦理、程序化的制度伦理。现实当中的程序正义是选举、司法以及立法、行政管理正当化的观念基础 ,宪政民主体制的伦理内涵。然而 ,程序正义之不幸在于其代表的乃是强者的正义 ,因而对弱者的权利保障是宪政民主体制不可缺少的组成部分。     

解读包公故事中的罪与罚

包公听讼断狱故事 ,突出的也是“罪与罚”的价值取向。正是基于这一原因 ,本稿在讨论包公故事中的法律问题时 ,首先标举“罪与罚”这个题目。除此之外 ,这一安排也有先“实体法”后“程序法”的技术考虑。值得引起我们思考的是 :在现实社会生活中 ,纠纷无论如何不会出现民事纠纷与刑事犯罪之间比例如此“悬殊”的情形。那末 ,何以馀以故事特别强调“罪与罚”这一主题呢 ?这正是本文着重研究的     

More Norms,Less Justice: Refugees,the Republic,and everyone in between

The paper argues for conflating refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) as two sides of a work-in-progress postcolonial state. To be sure, aliens, refugees, IDPs, and stateless persons are separate legal entities. Nevertheless, this fragmented normative regime stands testimony to more laws and less justice. Many Asian states have no domestic refugee law. India, a common law system, takes a case by case approach as refugees are given “temporary shelter on humanitarian considerations”. Ironically, a work-in-progress postcolonial state sustains even de jure citizens as de facto stateless persons; the erstwhile Indo-Bangla enclaves for more than half a century were an apt example. Surely, the raison d’être of international law on refugees is to end human suffering, if needed, by transcending the absence of positive laws. A constitutional and political desire to minimise human suffering alone could cut the rigour of such positivist legal narratives. The Delhi High Court seemingly walked that path in Koul v Estate Officer noting “refugees and IDPs appear to be similarly situated”. Rising terrorism has made states increasingly believe in a security narrative all the same. A simultaneous emergence of a demographic anxiety particularly in India’s North-eastern states increasingly pits aliens and refugees against the domiciled indigenous and tribal people.     

国际法院咨询管辖权初探

从常设国际法院到国际法院,其咨询管辖权和“司法性”之间的协调一直是一个难题。要想满意地解决法院当前面临的困境,不必急于扩大有权寻求咨询意见的机构的范围,而必须确保各机构在利用国际法院的咨询管辖权时,更多的是出于解决法律问题的目的而非政治目的。     

Drug Films,Justice, and Nationhood 1

This paper examines how drug traffickers, enforcement, nationhood, and space are represented in illegal drug films. Drawing from a sample of films produced in the United States between 1916 and 2005, this paper examines several drug films in order to explore how past and contemporary films on illegal drugs reflect conventional ideologies about law and order, the nation, and imperialism. Censorship and illegal drug films that challenge and rupture conventional ideologies will also be discussed.     

The Politics of Justice and the Paradox of Justification

Pluralism, (normative) uncertainty, and disagreement are all widely held to constitute major obstacles for gaining assent to policy choices, especially when they concern legitimation-sensitive issues and hence are in particular need of a sound justification. Plausible as it appears to be, in the present article I argue that this belief may reflect only half of the truth, because the very forces that are held responsible for the erosion of consent often also seem to serve as justificatory resources, opening the door for a wide range of policy options that it would not be possible to sell if it were always unambiguously clear what ought to be done. Some empirical examples are discussed to illustrate how this paradoxical logic of justification works in practice.     

论司法的原初与衍生功能

在"司法改革"如火如荼的当下中国,讨论我国的法院或者法官应该扮演怎样的角色,应是学界认真考虑的一个课题。本文以一种复眼式的角度,把司法功能分为原初功能与衍生功能。文章认为,作为原初功能,司法的纠纷解决还包括中介、缓和及促进纠纷解决等子功能。而以历史演变为线索,现代司法的衍生功能则包括法律维护与规则创设、权力制约与权利保障、社会控制与政策推进等功能。