论环境标准的法律地位——对主流观点的反思与补充

环境标准不同于环境标准法律规范，也不同于环境标准法律制度。从形式上看，它无构成法律规范所需的完整结构，也无独立的法律效力，故其属性只可属于行政规范性文件，而不应归于环境法的渊源，但环境标准可经法律规范的援引而成为构成该规范的“条件假设”或“行为模式”的组成部分。从而才被赋予相应的法律效力和法律意义。在裁判实践中，环境标准可作为判断环境行为违法与否的法律事实——“超标”或“这标”的依据，但不能单独作为环境行为是否违法的判断准则，违法与否还必须结合相关法律规范的具体规定才能做出正确判断，即达标不一定合法,超标也并不必然违法。     

Legal Scholarship at the Threshold of a New Millennium

Scholarship has already warned us to soundness in relation to modernisationist legal reforms. For it consistently (1) emphasised the framework-creating nature of the otherwise prevailing social normativity, and its primordial role in determining social processes, (2) put the possibility and demand of organicity with every step in the limelight, (3) did not consider the effectiveness of initiating elitist actions to influence overall social movements plannable for the long run and with lasting effects. Therefore, it regarded any regulatory legal intervention as the primarily symbolic confirmation with sanctioning of the direction otherwise ongoing movements were taking, (4) warned to the damages caused by any adventurer policy in as much as they not only fail, but discredit even the thought of change itself. Therefore, it (5) gave voice to the advantage of a systematically planned, consistent, convincing, pragmatic, and all-comprehensive social programme, as opposed to the occasional temptations of worldcuring intentions, exposed to the alternate danger of sudden forwarding and quick tiring, supported solely by intellectual arguments.     

Why Methods Matter in European Legal Scholarship

Both in the United States and in Europe, there is a debate on methodology in legal research. Doctrinalists and multidisciplinarians appear to be in different camps fighting over the ‘true nature’ of legal scholarship. We wonder where this renewed attention for methodology is coming from and what is behind it. Should European legal scholars follow certain colleagues in the United States who believe that doctrinal research is dead and should we all engage in law and … research now? If not, does this imply that there is nothing wrong with mainstream European doctrinal legal scholarship? We believe the latter is not the case. Our hypothesis is that an ongoing instrumentalisation of law and legal research decreases the attention for methodology, for theory building, and for keeping enough professional distance to one's object of research. This threatens to result in a creeping process of herd behaviour, in copy pasting the methodology of judicial lawmaking to legal scholarship and in a lack of transparency and methodological justification in scholarly legal publications. What is desperately needed is more reflection on methodology and theory building in European legal scholarship.     

Narratives of Force: The Presence of the Writer in International Legal Scholarship

Netherlands International Law Review - In this article I use the notion of ‘plot’ to uncover where in their texts international legal scholars are ‘present’, directing...     

爱德华·柯克爵士与英国法学近代化

在法学近代化之初,17世纪的英国面临着全面继受罗马法学与继承普通法学两条道路的选择.柯克爵士明确提出了"老田生新谷"的主张,在中世纪的<年鉴>与<论土地保有>等作品的基础上,撰写了<柯克报告>与<英国法总论>.在"法学观"、"部门法学"与"法学形态"等方面,这两部作品均呈现出了诸多近代性的"萌芽",从而开启了英国法学近代化的历程,并且在事实上开创了不同于欧陆法学近代化的"另一条道路".     

构建合理的法律援助经济困难标准

法律援助制度,又称法律救助、法律扶助制度,是世界各国普遍采用的国家对因经济困难无力支付法律服务费用的当事人或者为特殊条件的当事人减免收费提供法律帮助的一项司法救济制度,是实现＂公民在法律面前一律平等原则＂的要求,是正义得以落实的有力保障。     

“五个主义”的摒弃与中国法学的未来

中国法学60年,以1978年为界,可划分为两个阶段。就其指导思想即法学认识论和价值论而言,前30年主要是"法学教条主义"、"法律经验主义"、"法律虚无主义"、"法律工具主义"、"法学实用主义"。后30年的进步,主要是摒弃这"五个主义"的结果。经30年的努力,"五个主义"远未彻底摒弃,有些问题仍还比较严重地存在。中国法学如果要起到它指导中国法治建设实践所应当起的作用,只有继续反对和彻底拼弃这"五个主义"。     

国家基础设施推广型技术标准制定与标准制定组织建构

国家基础设施推广型技术标准是一类特殊的推荐性技术标准,在阐述其特殊性和制定原则的基础上,设计出国家基础设施推广型技术标准的制定实施流程,并依据其特点,对标准制定组织的组织建构提出具体建议。     

标准参照测验中标准设定的聚类分析法

针对标准参照测验中标准设定存在的问题,本文探讨了一种客观化标准设定方法:聚类分析法,该法基于客观的实际测验数据,采用数理统计手段确定分界分数。首先阐述了聚类分析法应用于标准设定的逻辑基础,随后探讨了基于聚类分析设定分界分数的基本方法和步骤,尤其是如何检验聚类分析法的有效性。结合已有实证研究讨论了聚类分析法的优点与不足,并对聚类分析的应用提出了若干建议。     

The Continuing Relevance of Ars Poetica to Legal Scholarship and the Modern Lawyer

In this late modern era within which the basic values of life have been reordered (driven by globalisation, the corporate agenda and mass communication technologies), the individual has effectively been reduced to a mere abstraction. It might be argued that the rational, moral and humanistic concept of freedom has, to a great extent, been compromised by a consequent crisis within the intelligentsia. These groups, in particular the gatekeepers of a classical liberal approach to legal scholarship, are caught between the twin evils of increased unreflective populism and pragmatism evident within many law schools and modern legal institutions. Although a contested term, defenders of the ‘socio-legal’ tradition, who place the humanities at the heart of legal research and education, are obliged to restate with increased determination the utility of the liberal arts and literature to the law profession and wider legal community. In a normative environment, law and narrative are inextricably linked and narrative poetry is not only invaluable to explaining the origins and location of the legal tradition, but also elicits a mode of understanding which transcends the boundaries of narrowlydefined legal hermeneutics—which often only addresses issues of an operational nature. French novelist Flaubert claimed “chaque notaire porte en soi les débris d’un poète” (Flaubert in Madame bovary (trans: Wall, G.), Penguin Classics, London, 1960: 269), paraphrased by American civil rights lawyer, Clarence Darrow, as “inside every lawyer is the wreck of a poet” (Lukas in Big trouble: a murder in a small western town sets off a struggle for the soul of America, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1997: 323). In an age of disenchantment, this paper explores the poetic form as an important medium within which to understand the nature and function of law in a society of differentiated individuals.