法律治理中的激励模式

法律治理的最高境界是实现非强制性的法律激励。法律激励的场域存在于法律关系的实践之中。法律激励的实现模式主要包括三类六种模式:权利模式与义务模式、奖励模式与惩罚模式、助力模式与阻力模式。各种模式之间具有相互联系、互相辅助的关系。     

法律义务新论——兼评张恒山教授《义务先定论》中的义务观

本文在评析了一般意义上的义务概念和几种似是而非的法律义务观之后 ,提出 :法律义务是为保障权利和权力的有效运行或实现 ,而由法律设定或当事人约定并通过预设一定的法律责任来保障的、相关主体在一定条件下必须作或不能作的某种行为。它有四大表现形态 :即权利对权利的义务 ,权利对权力的义务 ,权力对权利的义务和权力对权力的义务 ;其中每一形态又包含若干亚类。人们之所以履行义务 ,有多种原因 ,但归根结底是为了自我权利的实现。     

税收征纳法律关系的法理解析

税收征纳法律关系是发生在税收实体债务实现过程中征纳主体之间的权利 (力 )义务关系 ,是税法规范作用于税收征纳关系的过程和结果 ,它作为税法秩序的存在形态和税法的运行范畴 ,具有重大的理论与实践价值。通过对税收征纳法律关系的内在特质、多种类型关系的交织性进行详尽的法理分析 ,提出并论证了平衡精神和程序保障原则作为税收征纳法律关系本质的正当根据。     

先秦时期债流转的史实探析

中国先秦时期从国家形成到秦始皇统一以前 ,债权债务关系随社会经济的发展而不断复杂化 ,解决债权债务的案例日益增多 ,实践中出现了不自觉的债的分类调整 ,对债的不同表现形式也有对比研究 ,这体现出中国独特的调整债的法文化特征。     

现物出资瑕疵法律问题探析

现物出资是公司设立的出资制度中较为敏感的话题。以现物出资不仅要符合出资协议的约定,而且必须符合公司法的规定,否则,即构成瑕疵。现物出资瑕疵包括标的物上的物的瑕疵和权利瑕疵,也包括出资行为的瑕疵。为了保证资本充实原则,现物出资人负有瑕疵担保责任,否则,出资人应当承担法律责任。按照出资瑕疵被发现的时间不同,可以分为公司设立前发现瑕疵的法律责任与公司设立后发现瑕疵的法律责任,按照瑕疵大小的不同,又可分为出资达到法定最低资本限额时的责任与未达法定最低资本限额时的责任。     

Marriage and the Moral Bases of Personal Relationships

Marriage is a legal institution. Current debates about whether it should be extended beyond its traditional heterosexual constitution, and whether many of its legal incidents should apply to couples who live together without marrying, and about the introduction of civil partnership (modelled closely on marriage) for same-sex couples, make an examination of its contemporary role particularly timely. This article is about the interplay between the institution of marriage and ideas of obligation within personal relationships. It takes as its starting point some commonly held opinions. First, that the sense of obligation which hitherto guided people's behaviour in their personal relationships has much diminished or even disappeared. Second, that this diminution is reflected in the decline in marriage. We will then examine what the evidence of an empirical study conducted by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy reveals about the way people in married and unmarried relationships understand the nature of their personal obligations. In doing this it will be seen that the moral bases which underpin people's personal relationships is complex and does not correspond in a simple way with formal, external social categories.     

论我国多数人之债的完善——以不可分之债与连带之债的区别为中心

不可分之债是从债的标的（给付）的角度对债的一种观察，连带之债却是从债的主体关系的角度对债的另一种观察，它们在划分标准、形成原因、功能目的、损害赔偿之债的性质、可继承性、整体履行的原因及方式方面存在明显不同。我国《民法通则》不当地将不可分之债并入到连带之债，只规定了按份之债和连带之债，与传统大陆法系大多数国家民法典的立法模式相悖，因而我国未来民法典应再增加可分之债和不可分之债这一分类，以填补法律的漏洞，从而明确地区别不可分之债和连带之债。     

论自然债务

自然债务是民法学者很少涉及的一个概念。文章着重考察了自然债务、法定义务与道德义务之联系与区别 ,从而大体从理论上界定了自然债务的本质 ,并以此为基点探讨了其构成及效力问题。最后 ,就这一制度在民法典中如何规定提出了自己的看法。     

最基本的法现象不是权利和义务而是权利和权力——评童之伟著《法权与宪政》

童之伟教授在其专著《法权与宪政》一书中 ,大胆地提出了最基本的法现象不是权利和义务 ,而是权利和权力 ,并将权利权力关系命名为“法权” ,从而揭示了立法上的权力和私法上的权利这对矛盾 ,以及权利和权力分别所对应的义务 ,这是对“法权”概念的重新诠释 ,实现了对“权”和“广义权利”认识的范畴化 ,基本上解决了长期困扰中外法学界对“权”和“广义权利”的内涵、外延不能合理确定的问题 ,并从改善法学理论的状况入手 ,成功地打通了法理学和宪法学的基本范畴。同时 ,该书哲学思想比较宽厚 ,研究方法独具匠心 ,为我们的学术研究提供了一种可资借鉴的崭新思路     

Normative Systems,Permission and Deontic Logic*

Abstract. The authors concentrate on the analysis of the concept of permission. After a general account of differing concepts of permission both with regard to different legal theories and to different legal ideologies, they argue in favour of a “radical” imperativism which leaves no place for permissive norms. Thus, in contrast with the logic of normative language (LNL) purported by Alchourrón and Bulygin, the authors figure out a system of deontic logic - supplemented by devices of the possible world semantics - according to which a normative system (N) is conceived as a set of logical consequences of a certain finite set of basic obligations and no room is left either for the concept of weak permission or for the concept of strong permission. Finally the authors raise some criticisms concerning the view maintained by Alchourron and Bulygin on strong permission.*     

立法机关的人权立法义务研究——以人权条款入宪为背景

人权条款写入宪法之后,国家立法机关担负有不可推卸的人权立法义务。立法机关的人权立法义务主要包括两个方面:人权的立法保护义务和人权的立法救济义务。在性质上,立法机关的人权立法义务应该是一种法律性义务,具有强制性效力。立法机关的人权立法义务,不仅具有规范层级方面的形式性要求,而且还要具有效力方面的实质性要求。     

私法程序理论的法理学意义

传统法理学理论仅将静态的法律关系内容(仅利、义务或者权力)作为它们的基石范畴,忽视了法律行为在法理学中的应有地位。私法程序理论揭示了程序在私法中的普遍存在及其重要功能,证明了程序不仅仅是公法的“专利”。“程序”应当与“权利”一起作为法理学的基石范畴,构建以权利一程序关系为基本架构的法理学范畴逻辑体系,以便从法理学的层面消除重实体轻程序等流弊。     

强制公开的义务主体与责任主体研究

强制公开原则是证券法律制度中的一项重要原则.强制公开是义务主体向不特定投资者承担的一项法定义务,它要求义务主体必须依法定的形式和内容履行义务;强制公开义务主体是指依据证券法律规定,有义务以自己的名义公开发布相关信息,并对此信息公开行为承担法律责任的主体,主要包括有价证券的发行人、特定情形下的投资者、公司并购中的收购人;强制公开的责任主体,是指根据证券法律法规的规定,因违反强制公开法律制度所应承担民事责任的主体,主要包括发行人、发行人的内部管理人员等直接责任人、保荐人、出具专家意见的证券服务机构、证券商、一定情形下的投资者.     

论医疗机构违反告知义务的医疗侵权责任

<医疗事故处理条例>规定的医疗机构义务是"软义务".医疗机构的告知义务是一种法定的合同义务,体现了法定性和意定性的交融.医疗行为本身的特点决定了有必要将意定性的告知义务上升为强行性的法定义务.患者的知情同意权包括充分知情权和自行决定权.医疗机构违反告知义务的侵权责任构成要件中的违法行为和损害事实具有特殊性:判断医疗机构的行为是否构成违反法定告知义务必须以患者的医疗期待为基础;损害事实包括现实权益损害和期待利益损害.     

The Legal Character of the Optional Clause System

In international legal writing the therm "optional clause" is construed to mean Art. 36. para. 2. of the Statue of the International Court of Justice, which allows the states parties to unilaterally declare that they recognize as compulsory, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiciton of the Court in specified categories of legal disputes. The above mentioned declarations from a special system called the system of complusory jurisdiction. The legal character of the optional clause and the system of complusory jurisdiction deserves attentionnot only because it embodies a theoretical issue, but also because it is of great practical relevance, considering that the answares to be given to a number of important matters associated with declarations of acceptance -such as the rules governing withdrawal or termination of declarations or its admissibility, the legal effects of reservation and restrictions attached to declarations, interpretation of declaration- depend on how one looks on the legal character of the clause. One trend will emphasize the unilaterial nature of the system of clause, while the other will conceive of the resultant relations as between states accepting the compulsory juridiction of the Court as a contractula relationship.     

Legal Attitudes of Immigrant Detainees

A substantial body of research shows that people's legal attitudes can have wide‐ranging behavioral consequences. In this article, I use original survey data to examine long‐term immigrant detainees’ legal attitudes. I find that the majority of detainees express a felt obligation to obey the law, and do so at a significantly higher rate than other U.S. sample populations. I also find that the detainees’ perceived obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities is significantly related to their evaluations of procedural justice, as measured by their assessments of fair treatment while in detention. This finding remains robust controlling for a variety of instrumental and detainee background factors, including the detainees’ experiences with the legal system and legal authorities in their countries of origin. Finally, I find that vicarious procedural justice evaluations based on detainees’ assessments of how others are treated are as important to detainees’ perceived obligation to obey U.S. immigration authorities as their personal experiences of fair or unfair treatment. I discuss the broader implications of these findings and their contributions to research on procedural justice and legal compliance, and research on legal attitudes of noncitizens.     

国家环境保护义务的溯源与展开

"因雾霾状告环保局第一案"暴露出环境保护领域法律判断与社会认同的矛盾,需要对政府环境保护职责之根源——国家环境保护义务问题予以理论回应。国家环境保护义务的证立,不能简单根据保障基本权利之国家义务体系进行演绎推理,而应从国家任务的现实需要出发进行归纳推理。环境基本国策是国家环境保护义务的宪法规范形态,是对所有国家权力构成约束的"国家目标条款"。国家环境保护义务在内涵上包括:现状保持义务、危险防御义务、风险预防义务。"立法+行政"是我国实现国家环境保护义务的基本路径。现行宪法第26条和第9条第2款共同表述了环境基本国策,并具有"国家目标条款"的规范效力。现阶段我国环境保护领域的国家任务,应围绕新修订的环境保护法的规定,从现状保持、危险防御、风险预防三个方面展开,共同推进国家环境保护义务的实现。     

对证券投资基金忠实义务的法律规制探讨

随着大盘的暴跌,基金资产的大幅缩水,我国证券投资基金违反忠实义务,侵害基金持有人利益的情形日显突出,这背后凸显的是深刻的信任危机。究其根源,是由于我国规制基金忠实行为的法律过于概括、原则,尚存在许多缺陷。因此,我国基金法规应对证券投资基金的忠实义务给予更详细、科学的规定,以实现切实保护基金持有人利益的目标。     

H. L. A. Hart on Legal Obligation*

Abstract. The author discusses Hart's concept of legal obligation, especially his contention that there is an obligation to obey the law which is peculiarly legal, i.e., non-moral. This view is held to be mistaken. What is denied is that legal rules, merely by their being issued, offer a justification for the use of coercion to ensure compliance with them. Although moral and other social (customary) rules are considered self-justifying, that is not the case of legal rules. Any analogy between these two types of rules in justifying their implementation by force is deemed wrong.**