民法典的实施与民事审判方式的再调整

民法典为民事纠纷的解决提供了更加充实和完善的实体法根据。基于民事审判方式在民事审判程序运行中的特殊地位,民事审判方式也应为民法典的实施作出相应调整。我国传统的民事审判方式是在较长时期实体法缺失或很不完善的法制环境下的产物,由此也就形成了虽追求纠纷解决结果,但却不在意深究请求权基础和法律推理逻辑的"散点式审判方式"。民法典作为体系化的、自洽的实体权利义务根据,为法律审判的"三段论"推理提供了最基本的前提条件。民法典实施的强大社会"气场"也必将有利地驱动民事审判方式再次进行调整,转向以明确原告实体请求权有无为中心的"聚焦式审判方式"。这种转向使得整个民事审判过程将始终围绕着实体请求权基础、请求权要件事实展开审判活动,从而实现了程序法与实体法的有效贯通和对接。使得以实体请求权及要件事实为中心的聚焦式审判能够更精确、细致地进行事实认定和法律适用,并催生更具技术操作规范的"要件审判法",从而能够更有效率地解决纠纷,让人们真切地感知到个案解决的实体正义和程序正义。     

American Criminal Trial Films: An Overview of Their Development, 1930–2000

The history of American trial films – and I am speaking of trial films in general at the moment, not of the sub-division of criminal trial films – has been shaped both by changes in public attitudes toward law and lawyers and by shifts in viewer tastes. These same factors have necessitated changes in the way we define 'American trial films'. In earlier years one could recognize a trial film with relative ease: it was a drama in which a heroic lawyer or lawyer surrogate solved the film's dilemmas in the course of a civil or criminal trial, usually a trial held within a courtroom. Contemporary movies, in contrast, are more interested in action than in debate and oratory, and they are more cynical about the effectiveness of legal processes. Thus they tend to embed a short trial scene in a longer adventure story, and they seldom depict lawyers as heroes on the grand scale or courts as places where fundamental social and moral issues are settled. In sum, the trial film genre is undergoing major change, if not dissolution.     

需要何种法律信任

"法律信任"对"法律信仰"概念的修正,实质走向了一个韦伯式概念,其理论本身在很大程度上也是韦伯命题的理论映照。这一韦伯式的"法律信任"概念,无论是在理论上还是在现实上都面临着巨大的困难,这种双重困难指向同一问题:"法律信任"如何可能?由此,立基于韦伯式的形式法律理论之上,不可能产生真正的"法律信任"。"法律信任"概念要想有意义,就必须建立在一种更具实质性的法律理论之上。     

行政程序中的形式与形式主义

行政程序不仅具有形式性属性,也具有实质性属性.我国行政程序法制发展重形式、轻实质的倾向已经在法律实践中产生了不良后果.这种偏颇主要源自三个法律程序观的误识:一是行政程序的泛司法化误识;二是行政程序的反实质化误识;三是行政程序的非法律化误识.必须强调行政程序的实质因素与形式因素并重的良性行政程序发展观.     

Undoing the Legal Capacities of a Military Object: A Case Study on the (In)Visibility of Civilians

International law dictates that actors in armed conflicts must distinguish between combatants and civilians. But how do legal actors assess the legality of a military operation after the fact? I analyze a civil proceeding for compensation by victims of a German‐led airstrike in Afghanistan. The court treated military video as key evidence. I show how lawyers, judges, and expert witnesses categorized those involved by asking what a “military viewer” would make of the pictures. During the hearing, they avoided the categories of combatants/civilians; the military object resisted legal coding. I examine the decision in its procedural context, using ethnographic field notes and legal documents. I combine two ethnomethodological analytics: a trans‐sequential approach and membership categorization analysis. I show the value of this combination for the sociological analysis of legal practice. I also propose that legal practitioners should use this approach to assess military viewing as a concerted, situated activity.     

实质诉讼法的“脱私入公”过程及其复兴意义 ——以温特沙伊德《当代法意识下的罗马私法之诉》的解读为主线

民事诉讼法是实质诉讼规范和诉讼程序规范之集合,但通说却将其同义于诉讼程序法而尘封实质诉讼法。从法律发达史上考察,实质诉讼法曾依附于实体私法体系,且与诉讼程序法长期处于分离状态,在脱离私法体系之后于民事诉讼法中找到了安身之处,并且在公法诉权说的推动下皈依了公法。在实质诉讼法脱私法体系而入诉讼法体系的发展过程中,温特沙伊德的《诉论》发挥了主要原动力作用,因而被奉为促成民事诉讼法走向独立化的“门罗宣言”。本文拟通过解读《诉论》,阐述实质诉讼法脱离私法体系而入公法的民事诉讼法之过程,恢复实质诉讼法的本来面目,以为我们克服民事诉讼法同于纯程序法之观念提供理论上的支撑。     

Legal Transplants and Legal Downloads

Online legal education has the potential to address a global audience. But little attention has been paid so far to the question of how teaching methods developed in one jurisdiction interact with the substantive law of another legal system. This paper challenges the assumption of the independence of substantive law and law teaching on the basis of a comparative evaluation of online law tutorials in Scotland and Germany. It concludes that the transplanting legal education, as transplanting substantive law, can have unpredictable consequences.     

Hero or Villain? Cinematic Lawyers and the Delivery of Justice

This essay is concerned with two specific issues that have as their backdrop the heroic central figure, the trial lawyer. First it considers the role of screen lawyers in seeking to maintain public (in this sense the public is the community within the film) support for the due process of law. The issue is the link between the lawyer and the initiation of the formal legal process. Essentially it is the extent to which the lawyer defends the institution of law. The second part of the piece considers when screen lawyers are permitted to go outside the formal process of law to ensure that the right result is achieved. It examines instances of where lawyers have been prepared to go 'beyond law' to achieve justice. Such acts raise a number of questions concerning how such behaviour affects perception of the legitimacy of the law, professional ethics, and the relationship between law and justice     

Postmodern Jurisprudence: Contesting Genres

It has become a common place of contemporary legal theory, particularly postmodernist legal theory, to reject modernist jurisprudence’s assumption of law’s disciplinary autonomy. Within this enthusiasm for interdisciplinary approaches to law, what is less common is detailed analysis of precisely how interdisciplinarity is figured, rhetorically and epistemologically, in the discourse of contemporary legal theory. It is with a view to detailed analysis of this kind that this paper emerges. Its aim is to explore in detail how interdisciplinarity might be figured, and with what consequences, in the jurisprudence of postmodernity. The particular site of this exploration will be Costas Douzinas and Ronnie Warrington with Shaun McVeigh’s Postmodern Jurisprudence: the Law of Text in the Texts of law. Published in 1991, this text remains widely influential – it has become a contemporary classic in its genre. It is not the intention of this paper, however, to represent this text as exemplary. Rather, this paper intends to read this text in its particularity, to focus on its particular vision of postmodern jurisprudence. Specifically, this paper argues that Postmodern Jurisprudence figures interdisciplinarity in terms of genre; and that this understanding of interdisciplinarity is problematised by the unacknowledged contradictions between the different conceptions of genre – one associated with Jacques Derrida and the other associated with Jean-François Lyotard – which the text invokes. This paper argues that the project of postmodern jurisprudence – as title and as label – appears rather differently if it is imagined, on the one hand (following Derrida) according to the logic of the passe-partout and, on the other hand (following Lyotard), according to the logic of the differend. The paper concludes that this internal tension should at least give us pause for thought when approaching the complex phenomenon of interdisciplinarity in postmodern legal scholarship more generally.     

同案同判下司法技术与情理的平衡

同案同判旨在通过指导案例和类案检索制度促进法律统一适用,从而树立司法公信力。同案同判表示着司法技术化趋势,而司法技术化是中国近代以来愈加推崇的形式理性及其所引领的市场经济、科技发展的必然结果。同案同判一方面保证了法律的确定性与司法的形式正义,另一方面却因法律适用过程中的技术化操作牺牲了部分个案的实质正义。既然同案同判的最终目的是向社会树立司法公正价值,那么就必须兼顾社会公正观。当代社会的主流公正观是在法治前提下追求情理法兼容。这是法律儒家化的结果,符合中华文明的和谐平衡观,是传统司法的首要原则。司法技术化与传统情理法的冲突,深层次是中西文化、传统与现代的冲突。近代以来,中国对技术过度迷信,导致司法公正与民众公正观的间隙扩大。这需以情理法兼容的传统予以调和,使司法不仅仅是科学的法律知识与程序之学,更是兼顾伦理观的司法技艺。司法技术只能作为解决当前司法适用不统一的过渡与辅助手段,长远来看,需通过拓展法官的综合知识与培育伦理素质以正确适用、阐释法律。     

The Legality of Law

Abstract. In this paper I outline various different objects of investigation that may be picked out by word “law” (or its cognates). All of these objects must be investigated in an integrated way before one can provide a complete philosophical explanation of the nature of law. I begin with the distinction between laws (artefacts) and law (the genre to which the artefacts belong). This leads me to the distinction between the law (of a particular legal system) and law (the genre of artefacts). Then I discuss the contrast between law (the genre of artefacts) and law (the practice). Finally I comment on legality as the name of an ideal for laws and legal systems to live up to. I commend H. L. A. Hart's explanation of the nature of law for investigating these various objects in an integraed way, while nevertheless respecting the distinctions among them. I also criticise some of R. M. Dworkin's work for failing to respect the same distinctions.     

Mother India: The Role of the Maternal Figure in Establishing Legal Subjectivity

Psychoanalytic jurisprudence attempts to understand the images used by law to attract and capture the subject. In keeping with the larger psychoanalytic tradition, such theories tend to overemphasise the paternal principle. The image of law is said to be the image of the paterfamilias—the biological father, the sovereign, or God. In contrast to such theories, I would like to introduce the image of the mother and analyse its impact on the subject’s relation to law. For this purpose, I examine the history and use of the figure of Bharat Mata or Mother India and how it influences the Indian subject’s relation to law. When the subject is torn between his loyalties to the lawmaker–as–father and the nation–as–mother, who does he side with? Eschewing Greek myths and the Oedipus complex, I focus instead on Hindu mythology and the notion of an oedipal alliance to understand legal subjectivity in India. Lastly, I analyse a defining Indian political trial, the Gandhi murder trial, in which all these notions come to play and the accused justifies his decision to murder the father of the nation in the name of the motherland.     

从刑民实体判断看交叉案件的诉讼处理机制

鉴于刑民实体关系的处理对司法实践中刑民交叉案件审理顺序的直接影响,刑民交叉案件应当坚持实体法和程序法的双重视角考察。在交叉案件的实体判断中,法秩序的统一不在于保持违法概念、违法判断的一致,而在于维护"合法"判断一致。强行将民事违法性作为刑事违法的判断前提,极有可能想当然地以合同无效、过错等充实尚无定论的民事违法性,反而导致了刑事违法判断的"失真"。在交叉案件的审理中,裁判的统一是客观事实的最大限度统一而非客观事实和法律评价的完全一致。贯彻了违法判断(相对)独立性的"刑民并行"模式既尊重了审判的独立性,也有助于避免因案件受理顺序的不同而导致裁判结果不同,是更为合理、高效的诉讼处理机制。但是,当刑民审判存在先决关系时,作为交叉案件审理例外模式的"先刑后民"和"先民后刑"具有一定妥当性。     

论行政诉讼上的合理性审查

在行政诉讼上由"滥用职权""明显不当"构建的合理性审查,就是实质合法性审查。我国行政诉讼法第70条胪列的各种审查标准实际上暗含着适用次序,形式合法审查标准先于实质合法审查标准,"滥用职权"先于"明显不当"。这对于隔断随意流动、阐释各自的内涵与边界、形成较为稳定的解释结构至关重要。为了进一步科学合理地界定"滥用职权""明显不当",对于"滥用职权"的解释应当去主观化,受限于变更判决的"木桶效应",不宜无限扩大"明显不当"的内涵。     

现代刑事诉讼法的“帝王"原则:程序法定原则重述

程序法定原则作为刑事诉讼法的首位原则、“帝王”原则,构成了现代程序法的基石, 其地位如同罪刑法定原则之于刑法典。从内容上分析,程序法定原则包括了形式(程序合法性)和实质(程序正当性)两项要件,由此产生了形式意义上的程序法定原则和实质意义上的程序法定原则。作为现代刑事诉讼程序的一种通论性和一般性原则,程序法定原则对于整个刑事诉讼程序具有统摄性,在刑事诉讼各个阶段都存在着程序法定的具细原则。我国刑事诉讼制度在立法和司法实践中存在的种种问题最后几乎都可以归结为“程序法定”原则的不彰、程序法定价值的不显。基于此,刑事诉讼法典的制定和运行,贯彻程序法定原则是当务之急。     

A 'European' Conception of Legal Consciousness: Rediscovering Eugen Ehrlich

This paper discusses the present ‘legal consciousness’ literature and seeks to identify two different conceptions of legal consciousness. Most of this literature originated in the United States, but there has also been a growing interest in issues of legal consciousness in Europe. The use of the term ‘legal consciousness ’ in these European discussions is, however, remarkably different from its use in the United States literature. It is argued that the most commonly used ‘American ’ conception of legal consciousness reflects important ideas of Roscoe Pound and asks: how do people experience (official) law? By contrast, a European conception of legal consciousness, which was first introduced by the Austrian legal theorist Eugen Ehrlich, focuses on: what do people experience as ‘law ’? After both perspectives are applied in a case‐study of a run‐down neighbourhood in the Netherlands, it is concluded that future studies of legal consciousness may benefit from an integration of the two conceptions.     

Why Interpret?

Abstract. My article is about legal interpretation, but not about the question: how to interpret the law. Rather its aim is to make us consider seriously the question: Why is interpretation central to legal practices? After all not all normative practices assign interpretation such a central role. In this regard the law contrasts with morality. The reason for the contrast has to do with the status of sources in the law. There are no “moral sources” while legal sources are central to the law. Legal interpretation is primarily—I will suggest—the interpretation not of the law, but of its sources. To understand why interpretation is central to legal practices requires understanding the role of sources in the law: the reasons for having them, and hence also the ways in which they should be treated. I will show how reflections about these topics connect with some traditional jurisprudential puzzles, such as the relations between law and morality. Are there gaps in the law? Is the law or its interpretation objective or subjective?     

An Interpretation of Max Weber's Theory of Law: Metaphysics, Economics, and the Iron Cage of Constitutional Law

Among legal scholars, Anthony T. Kronman and David M. Trubek have provided the leading interpretations of Weber's theory of law. Kronman and Trubek agree on two important points: Weber's theory is fundamentally contradictory, and Weber's theory relates primarily to private law subjects such as contracts. This article contests both of these points. Building on a foundation of Weber's neo-Kantian metaphysics and his sociological categories of economic action, this article shows that Weber's theory of law is not fundamentally inconsistent; rather it explores the inconsistencies that are inherent within Western society itself, including its legal systems. Furthermore, Weber's insights can be applied to modern constitutional jurisprudence. Weberian theory reveals that modern constitutional law is riddled with irreconcilable tensions between process and substance—between formal and substantive rationality. In the context of racial discrimination cases involving equal protection and the Fifteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court's acceptance of John Hart Ely's theory of representation-reinforcement demonstrates the Court's resolute pursuit of formal rationality, which insures that the substantive values and needs of minorities will remain unsatisfied.     

中美贸易摩擦中的法律战--从不可靠实体清单制度到阻断办法

中美贸易摩擦有明暗两条主线。明线是两国政府就贸易摩擦所涉议题展开谈判,以期达成协议,解决贸易争端;暗线是中美之间就制裁和反制裁、遏制和反遏制展开的法律战。法律战是中美贸易摩擦所呈现的国家之间的法律和制度之争,是美国法律霸权主义背景下中国参与国际经济治理无法回避和必须回应的法律竞争和法律反遏制。法律战的工具具有多元性,这导致法律战呈现出复杂性。以长臂管辖和次级制裁为主要特征和核心的法律战对于中国完善国内法和参与国际法实践提出了更高的规则和制度要求。以不可靠实体清单制度和阻断办法为代表的法律战需要实体法、程序法、国内法、国际法多重要素的整体配合,才能达到政策目标。