关于"正义"的法哲学研究

法律应体现正义,对此应作出法哲学的历史考察。研究表明,对"正义"的追问必触及到其中关于"程序"与"伦理"的内在矛盾。要强调,"程序正义""伦理正义"的合理性,共同构成"法律合法性"的基础。总之,应当立足实际建设体现"程序正义""伦理正义"相统一的"正义之法"。     

刑事司法中的“习惯”问题研究

在刑事司法实践中,司法习惯是一种普遍的司法现象,法律理解和操作上的习惯成为司法职业者实际遵循的规则。正确的刑事司法习惯一般对司法活动具有稳定性、司法行为结果的可预见性、司法处理方式和结果的一致性、减轻司法负担等几方面功能。然而,在我国存在大量与法律冲突,或表面上合符法律的规定实质上违背了立法原意,或虽符合法理但法律又无相关规定的背离或超越法律的错误和瑕疵习惯。纠正错误或瑕疵习惯需要采取建立完善相应制度,培养和树立法治观念,创造条件改善刑事司法环境,形成职业法律家群体等措施。     

"以人为本"的法体系研究

法的"以人为本"的实质必须体现在法体系的各个部门之中.根本法(宪法)应以人的普遍人权为本;私法(市民法)应以人的市民权为本;公法(公民法)应以人的公民权为本;而社会法作为新近产生的一个部门,应以人的社会权为本.     

晚清“公法中源”说初探

"公法中源"说滥觞于19世纪60年代,绵延至20世纪初,相继得到了洋务思想家、美国传教士丁韪良和维新思想家的推磨和倡扬,经历了从萌芽到鼎盛再到衰退的演变历程。它包括相互联系的两个层面:第一,早在千余年前中国就已经产生国际法。洋务思想家和丁韪良分别探讨了中国古代国际法的实体基础和历史实践。第二,中国古代国际法具有普世价值。维新思想家进一步把孔子及《春秋》说成是近代国际法的直接渊源,把"公法中源"说推向极致。"公法中源"说在晚清的出现与发展深受历史、现实、理论三重因素的共同制约与作用。作为近代一种会通中西公法文化的理论学说,"公法中源"说有其独到的理论价值和现实意义,同时也存在由于方法错误和理论缺陷而导致的若干消极影响。     

反补贴法中的“非市场经济”问题研究

2007年3月30日,美国商务部宣布对原产于中国的铜版纸适用反补贴法,继加拿大之后又一次突破了“反补贴不适用于非市场经济国家”的定论。文章从有关国际法和国内法规范入手,着重探讨了国外对华适用反补贴的理论依据,指出在我国对外贸易顺差持续走高的条件下,国际对华反补贴已呈风雨欲来之势,寻求应对之策已迫在眉睫。     

我国知识产权侵权救济“双轨制”的正当性——一种经济分析法学的诠释

目前我国知识产权侵权救济采用行政救济和司法救济并行的"双轨制"制度,对知识产权人和救济制度各自的成本效益进行分析后,可以认为,情况简单,易于判断的侵权案件,适用行政救济程序效率更高,而对于情况复杂,难于判断的侵权案件,适用司法救济程序效率更高,因此目前"双轨制"的存在仍具有其必要性.     

试论执法公正

“执法公正”是指行政执法行为的过程和结果遵循和体现了公平与正义的原则,包括实体公正和程序公正。现阶段,我国更应强调程序公正。实现“执法公正”需要从完善立法、提高执法人员“法治”观念与执法水平入手。     

由承托双方的正义到公共的正义——由船舶适航性的演进看海商法的发展趋势

船舶适航性问题由来已久,其历史实质也代表着整个海商法的发展史,回顾船舶适航性的古老历史与新近发展进程,船舶适航性演进的内在路径是由追求承托双方之间的正义逐渐延伸到更广泛的公共正义,而这一规律同样也是海商法的发展方向。     

从“恢复性司法”看中国法文化传统的现代意义

中国司法传统的主流体现了一种朴素的人道精神,也蕴含着“和为贵”的价值取向。而目前在西方兴起的“恢复性司法”运动,在价值理念上与儒家的和谐思想和调解制度有诸多近似之处,而这也正是中西法律文化可以汇通的地方。它们对我们今天构建和谐社会均有借鉴意义。     

Corrective Justice as A Principle of Criminal Law: A Prolegomenon

This article argues that corrective justice is an adequate principle of criminalization. On my interpretation, corrective justice holds that, in order for an action to count as a crime, there needs to be a plausible normative story about an offender having violated the interests of a victim in a way that disturbs their relationship as equal persons and a subsequent story about responding to crime in a way that corrects this disturbance. More specifically, I claim that corrective justice is concerned with the protection of interests that persons have in owning private goods throughout standard interactions with other persons. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, I specify the subject-matter that principles of criminal law need to ground and provide an outline of the idea of corrective justice. Second, I show that corrective justice can account for the main cases of crime and the salient modes of criminal responsibility. I also argue that corrective justice can make sense of two prima facie recalcitrant types of cases (rape and inchoate offenses). Third, and finally, I address two objections to my corrective justice theory of criminal law. The first concerns the implications corrective justice has for locating criminal law along the private/public law divide. The second objection raises the putatively problematic consequences corrective justice has for understanding the separation between criminal and civil law.     

日本的刑事司法改革——社会的“法化”还是法的“社会化”？

日本正在进行大规模的司法改革。负责对这次司法改革进行设计的“司法制度改革审议会” ,已于 2 0 0 1年 6月提出了最终意见书 ,描绘出了改革的大体轮廓。随后 ,在日本政府内阁内成立了“司法改革推本部” ,具体负责有关司法改革的法律的起草等工作 ,日本政府定于 2 0 0 4年国会会期时 ,向国会提出主要的改革法律 ,如获得通过 ,司法改革将会全面展开并在短期间内完成。刑事司法改革是这次司法改革的重要内容。在我国 ,有关日本司法改革的全体状况已有所介绍和评论 ①,但从专业角度对其刑事司法改革进行介绍和分析的论文等并不多见 ,鉴于以此…     

A Biosemiotic Body of Law: The Neurobiology of Justice

We offer a theory regarding the symbolism of the human body in legal discourse. The theory blends legal theory, the neuroscience of empathy, and biosemiotics, a branch of semiotics that combines semiotics with theoretical biology. Our theory posits that this symbolism of the body is not solely a metaphor or semiotic sign of how law is cognitively structured in the mind. We propose that it also signifies neurobiological mechanisms of social emotion in the brain that are involved in the social and moral decision-making and behavior that law generally seeks to govern. Specifically, we hypothesize that the symbol of a collective human body in the language of law signifies neural mechanisms of pain empathy which generate a virtual, neurally simulated, emotional sense of sharing the feelings or pain of others and of thereby being one-in-body with or virtually equal to them. We speculate that this may be the neural basis of what is signified in legal and political theory as the “body politic” or “sense of equality,” because neuroscience and psychiatry further suggest that such pain empathy may provide the natural, emotional motivation to think and act in a rights-based manner. We conclude that misunderstanding of these neural mechanisms of pain empathy and related misinterpretation of this corporeal symbolism for the same may have long resulted in legal discourse that misinterprets the function of “pain” in the law and misinterprets the associated positive law, specifically the law regarding individual, equality-based rights and criminal justice, in particular, punishment theory.     

正义:法律与权利

引论 :正义是人之行为的一种属性我们选用“正当行为规则”一术语来指称那些有助益于自生自发秩序之型构的“目的独立”的规则(ｅｎｄ -ｉｎｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｔｒｕｌｅｓ) ,并以此与那些“目的依附”的 (ｅｎｄ -ｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｔ)组织规则相对照。前者是内部规则 (ｎｏｍｏｓ) ,而内部规则不仅是“私法社会”〔 1〕 的基础 ,而且也是使开放社会得以形成的基础 ;而后者 ,就其作为法律来说 ,乃是确定政府组织问题的公法。然而 ,我们并不认为 ,所有事实上有可能为人们所遵循的正当行为规则都应当被视作是法律 ,而且我们也不认为 ,每一条构…     

Tort Law and Corrective Justice

This article offers arefutation of the corrective justiceinterpretation of tort law – the view that itis essentially a system of corrective justice. It introduces a distinction between primary andsecondary tort duties and claims that tort lawis best understood as the union of its primaryand secondary duties. It then advances twoindependent criticisms of the correctivejustice interpretation. The article firstargues that primary tort duties have nothingfundamentally to do with corrective justice andthat, if one understands what is meant by``primary tort duties,' one is compelledto regard this fact as a decisive objection tothe corrective justice interpretation. Second,it argues that, whatever relation thereis between secondary tort duties and correctivejustice, that relation also holds betweencorrective justice and secondary duties ofother legal branches. In sum, the concept ofcorrective justice is neither capable ofunifying tort law nor of demarcating it fromother legal branches.The article also offers a general alternativeinterpretation of tort law. Rather thanbeing essentially corrective, tort law isessentially protective. Under this picture, iftort law has a most important point, it is theprotection of legal subjects and valuablesocial interests from harm. This is theoverarching ambition that unifies primary andsecondary tort duties. It does not, however,demarcate tort law from other legal branches.     

Public Law and Popular Justice

Group litigation is becoming commonplace. Rules of standing have been relaxed to allow groups to bring representative actions on behalf of their members or to act 'in the public interest'. Groups increasingly intervene in actions between third parties, presenting amicus briefs. This article traces the origins of group action in courts and speculates on the possible effects of changes which blur traditional distinctions between legal and political process, concluding that the legal process must be kept broadly within traditional boundaries, if the qualities of independence, rationality and finality for which it is valued are to be maintained.     

能动司法若干问题研究

作为一种司法理念或司法方式,中国的能动司法与西方司法能动主义既有知识上的缘脉关系,也有现象上的同质性,但由于各国政治及司法制度的不同,两者亦有一定区别,总体上应将中国能动司法视为世界法治语境中司法能动主义的一种特殊形态。西方司法能动主义是以司法独立性较强、全社会规则化意识较为明确、法官职业化制度较为成熟为基本条件的,因此,对于国情差异较大的中国来说,能动司法在实践形态上对西方司法能动主义应既有保留,又有创新和发展,同时应从多方面建立相应的保障机制,亦即:宏观上,建立良性的司法与政治的互动机制;中观上,建立有效的最高司法机构指导机制;微观上,建立合理而有序的法院内部审判运行机制。     

从"宽严相济"刑事政策看走私罪的法律修正

走私罪是我国"宽严相济"刑事政策中"严"的对象,在立法和司法上具体体现为通过增大走私犯罪对象扩大走私罪的犯罪圈,<刑法修正案(七)>(草案)增加走私国家禁止进出口的其他货物、物品的犯罪,将走私罪的对象进一步扩大化,这种立法方式模糊了走私罪以犯罪对象来立法的标准,值得重新审视.建议按照类型化立法方式分别设立走私应税货物物品罪、走私限制进出境货物物品罪和走私禁止进出境货物物品罪.同时,在司法中充分体现对走私罪的"严中有宽".     

美国刑事证据法中"盖然理由"标准研究

"盖然理由"是美国刑事证据法中一个重要概念,不仅是逮捕、搜查和扣押的证明标准,也是提起公诉的证明标准。对"盖然理由"的历史考察表明,该标准是个内容丰富、且具有内在层次性的证明体系。"盖然理由"标准对我国建立层次性刑事证明标准体系具有一定的借鉴意义。     

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。