Participatory Democracy and Criminal Justice

This essay asks if there is a role for an active public in ratcheting down the harsh politics of crime control in the United States and the United Kingdom that has led to increased use of the criminal law and greater severity in punishment. It considers two opposing answers offered by political and legal theorists and then begins to develop a participatory democratic framework for institutional reform.     

经济民主与社会正义——竞争法的深层底蕴

竞争法的价值追求不应该止于传统的自由和竞争理念,还应当审视自由和竞争之后的深层价值追求:经济民主和社会正义。经济民主是指经济领域内的民主。经济民主理念促使竞争法突破竞争者中心主义,关注多元主体的参与机制,突破禁令模式走向限制强势与扶助弱势相结合的机制。社会正义在经济领域具有特殊的涵义。由于自由竞争无法满足社会正义的要求,需要由政府等公共权力作为社会公意的代言人。政府应从社会正义原则的要求出发在遵循辅助性原则和民主性原则的前提下,为市场竞争制定有效的规范,维护弱势经济主体的基本利益。     

Basic Social Rights, Constitutional Justice, and Democracy

Abstract.   The theory of rights is crucial as a means of relieving the tension between basic rights and democracy, and as a means of resolving the problem of allocating competence between the constitutional court and the legislature. To some theorists, no tension between basic rights and democracy exists, for the latter presupposes the former. To others, among whom I include myself, tension does exist, for basic rights, in lending protection to certain persons and groups, limit the possibilities of political decision. In this connection it is important to take up the problem of the necessary conditions for realizing basic rights. One of these conditions concerns the delimiting of the scope of institutional action that is found, so to speak, in the space between the constitutional justices and the legislature, the latter as representative of the popular will.     

Habermas on Democracy and Justice. Limits of a Sound Conception

Abstract . The author outlines limitations of the explanation capacity of Habermas's Discourse Philosophy, because of its problematic presuppositions. The main topics discussed are: (i) the legitimacy of legal systems; (ii) Habermas's concept of democracy; (iii) his theory of justice. Legitimacy cannot be based only on discourse processes, but it has to be defined by international law. Discourses in society are essential for democratic systems, but the discourses by themselves do not guarantee the optimal result as discourses may be disturbed by deceptive propaganda, by prejudices or by wrong political slogans. It is not convincing that discourse procedures guarantee impartiality and justice nor that in discourses better arguments always prevail.     

司法与民主的对冲与平衡:对司法问责的审视

司法问责植根于司法与民主之间对冲和平衡的原理及实践。司法问责中包含着司法问责的正当性、司法问责的主体、司法问责的事由、司法问责结果等基本内容,并在类别上体现为法定性问责、公权性问责、社会性问责,而司法选任和司法惩戒则合力构成了司法问责的制度性基础。司法问责的理论内核表现为意图对民主权力行使同司法权合理运作之间的边界和维度进行有序勾勒。任何一国司法问责的具体操作都需立足于自身政治体制中司法与民主之间的现实基础,而逐步对司法权属性和运作、国家权力配置和格局、问责基本内容和要求等予以合理审视和考量。     

Criminal Justice in a Democracy: Towards a Relational Conception of Criminal Law and Punishment

This article starts from the observation that in classical Athens the discovery of democracy as a normative model of politics has been from the beginning not only a political and a legal but at the same time a philosophical enterprise. Reflections on the concept of criminal law and on the meaning of punishment can greatly benefit from reflections on Athenian democracy as a germ for our contemporary debate on criminal justice in a democracy. Three main characteristics of the Athenian model will be analysed: the self-instituting capacity of a democracy based on participatory and reflective citizenship, political power as the capacity of citizens for co-operating and co-acting with others, and the crime of hubris as one of the key issues in Athenian criminal law. These analyses will lead to the conclusion that one of the key issues of a democratic legal order lies in its capacity of recognizing the fragility of the human condition and of developing workable and effective standards of justice in that context. A relational conception of criminal law and punishment, based on proportionality, reflexivity, mutual respect and responsibility fits best with a democracy under the rule of law.

Transitional Justice and the Quest for Democracy: A Contribution to a Political Theory of Democratic Transformations

The paper seeks to contribute to the transitional justice literature by overcoming the Democracy v. Justice debate. This debate is normatively implausible and prudentially self‐defeating. Normatively, transitional justice will be conceptualised as an imperative of democratic equal concern. Prudentially, it can prevent further violence and provide an opportunity for initiating processes of democratic emotional socialisation. The resentment and indignation animating transitions should be acknowledged as markers of a sense of justice. As such, they can help the reproduction of democracy. However, their public expression must be institutionally filtered through democratic norms. The consistent institutional instantiation of equal respect can educate and recuperate negative emotions for democracy.     

协商民主视角下网络民意参与司法的正当性阐释

网络民意有序参与司法具有鲜明的时代背景和深刻的理论基础。从协商民主的角度来看,网络民意参与司法体现了协商民主的精神,表现为民主协商的过程,并以协商型正义为结果。就网络民意的生发过程而言,网络民意应然地昭示和实践着协商民主的精神;就现代司法的正义诉求而言,不管是司法程序内部还是司法与社会之间都体现出民主协商的精神;协商民主由此成为网络民意与现代司法之间的价值纽带,网络民意对司法的参与也因此获得了民主协商的模式,通过协商而达致的协商型正义则成为了网络民意参与司法的理想境界。     

加强党内民主带动人民民主

发展社会主义民主政治是我国全面建设具有中国特色社会主义的基本目标之一.胡锦涛总书记在中国共产党十七大报告中对加强社会主义民主政治和加强中国共产党党内民主建设的阐述,既有高度的理论性,又具有实践上的可操作性,引起了国内外的广泛关注.这些论述对今后一个时期加强党内民主和社会主义民主政治建设具有重大意义.     

Democracy and Disagreement

Abstract. According to Popper's critical rationalism, the possibility of disagreement is at the heart of open societies. If this is assumed to be true, is it not illiberal to try to justify principles of justice, which can be regarded as the subject of an unending collective deliberation? I suggest that it is not, using an analogy with scientific progress. Moreover, I try to show that Rawls's achievement is misunderstood if one forgets that it is supposed to overcome the antinomy between “la liberté des Modemes” and “la liberté des Anciens.” In this respect, I insist on some unnoticed similarities between Rawls's and Popper's points of views. I conclude on the idea of the “neutrality” of the theory of justice, suggesting a link between Rawls's approach and the French republican tradition.     

Justice, Sanctioning, and the Justice Model

The justice model has emerged as an alternative to the discredited rehabilitative ideal as a basis for sanctioning policy. Retributivism or just deserts is offered as the primary justification for the criminal sanction in this model, although sometimes in combination with incapacitation and deterrence as companion rationales for sanctioning. Desert is, additionally, an integral component of a sense of justice that is presented as an attribute of the justice model. Desert, both as a rationale for sanctions and as the basis for justice, is drawn from the philosophical models of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls. However, these models have some rather disturbing implications that have not been addressed by proponents of the justice model. A critical examination of them and their implications for criminology is therefore in order.     

Justice Between Sites of Justice

Michael Blake argues that states are the primary sites of justice for persons and that the function of international justice is to ensure that states interact with each other in ways that preserve the capacity of each to realize justice for their own members. This paper will argue that justice among states requires more of states than that they preserve and maintain each other's capacity as primary sites of justice. Justice among states will require some justification, as well, of the claims of states over resources and territory within their borders. Such a justification, I suggest, must presume a global institutional order, and this will introduce the problem of coercion in the international domain. International coercion will have implications for Blake's understanding of international economic justice since it is premised on the claim that the domestic context is coercive in a way that the international arena is not.     

交换的正义与分配的正义——纠纷解决途径的正当性基础解读

民事诉讼程序对于纷争利益的处理,主要是通过合意与决定这两种途径来进行的.合意实质上就是当事人出于自身利益的考虑,而与对方达成的利益交换契约,其正当性主要体现在利益交换方面,要符合交换正义的要求;而决定则是法院根据自己对于正义的理解,对争议问题作出的安排,其正当性则体现在利益的强制配置方面,应当遵循分配正义准则.在具体的案件处理中,两种正义经常交织在一起,共同构成裁判结果的正当性基础.     

Legality and Justice

The present stage in the history of the Soviet state is characterized by the improvement of socialist democracy in all spheres. Legality is most closely connected with democracy. Legality ensures law and order. The policy of developing democracy does not mean that the individual will be left to himself, that observance of the laws is henceforth not obligatory, or that standards are being lowered and a nihilistic attitude toward state discipline is permissible. Certainly, the majority of Soviet people voluntarily observe the provisions of the law as a result of their great consciousness; they regard these provisions as the expression of the will of society as a whole. But at the same time, under present-day conditions, full force still attaches to Lenin's notion that "law is nothing without a machinery capable of compelling observance of its provisions."