刑事陪审中法律问题与事实问题的区分

事实问题具有法律性,法律问题具有事实性,因此在理论上很难找到清晰而明确的标准准确地区分刑事陪审中的法律问题与事实问题。境外刑事陪审实践中对法律问题与事实问题之区分,主要是通过程序机制的方法明确法官和陪审员的具体职责,由此形成了一般裁定和问题清单两种不同的模式。我国刑事陪审中法律问题与事实问题的区分,既要遵循法哲学上有关诉讼中区分法律问题与事实问题的基本规律,又要充分考虑我国法律传统和司法实践等因素。     

我国行政诉讼事实审问题研究

任何具体行政行为都是行政机关以其法定职权作用于法律事实并做出法律结论的过程。对具体行政行为的事实认定和法律适用进行审查是行政诉讼的基本内容。尽管事实认定是使用法律的前提和基础,但法院和行政机关相比,在法律适用和事实认定上存在优势上的差异。法院对事实问题审查限度的把握及其具体标准,关系到审判权与行政权的配置和界限。本文通过对我国理论界有关事实问题审查理论主要观点及世界其他国家对此问题的相关规定的介绍,分析出影响事实问题审查的因素,并为正确理解该问题提出自己的观点。     

知识产权民事审判中事实问题与法律问题辨析

知识产权案件是涉及技术问题最广、最新、频率最高的案件类型,如何恰当地审理案件所涉技术问题,对知识产权案件的审判至关重要.采用实证分析的方法,结合审判实践,对在审理知识产权案件中有关事实问题与法律问题进行了辨析,并提出区分、解决事实问题和法律问题的路径,以期解决审判中存在的实际问题.     

论“事实问题”与“法律问题”的区分

"事实问题"与"法律问题"的区分对司法具有至关重要的意义。由于"事实"与"法律"不能从本体论或认识论上加以界分,采用分析的进路区分"事实问题"与"法律问题"很难奏效,诉诸实用主义的进路在某种意义上就在所难免。英美法系与大陆法系国家均积累了丰富的实用性、经验性区分标准,殊值我国法学界和实务界参考借鉴。     

论法律的确定性与不确定性

崇尚法律的确定性,是西方法学界一个悠久的学术传统。20世纪以来,西方法学界关于这一问题的立场发生了根本转变,转而强调法律的不确定性。在法律运行的过程中,存在着多种不确定性因素,包括法律标准的不确定性、事实认定的不确定性、司法人员个性的不确定性和其他社会因素的不确定性等四个方面。无论是法律的确定性,还是法律的不确定性,都是相对的,而且,二者都蕴藏着一定的社会价值。     

行政诉讼事实问题及其审查

长期以来 ,我国行政诉讼实践并不严格区分事实问题与法律问题 ,但两者之间有着本质的区别 ,法院审查时应当区别对待。由于行政主体的事实认定大多是行政裁量的结果 ,因此行政诉讼事实问题实质上是一个法官判断行政主体事实认定是否合理的问题。它涉及到司法权与行政权在国家生活中的角色分工和关系协调。在明确以法官自由心证为审查基本方法的情况下 ,必须设置一系列的制度防止法官恣意 ,并确定合理的审查强度     

论事实作品的版权保护

对事实进行选择、协调与编排,调查,推测,分类,评价,预测所形成的作品都是事实性作品.在事实性汇编作品的场合,如果作者对事实的选择、协调或编.排具备最低限度的创造性,其应当获得版权保护;仅仅是对事实的调查本身不能够使该事实具有可版权性;分类本身只是不受版权保护的思想,对特定分类方法的表达则可能具有可版叔性;事实之上如果添加了作者的评价因素,可能获得版权保护;国外多数法院认为,对未来事实的预测本身可以享有版枳保护.我国的著作权法律制度中似乎只有著作权法实施条例第2条对作品的可版权性要件作了抽象的规定,对事实作品等典型和特殊类型的作品具体的可版权性要件的规定似乎尚属欠缺,有详加规定的需要.     

司法裁判中的事实问题——以法律心理学为视角的考察

不管是二元方法论还是一元应用法律观都承认事实问题与法律问题的相对独立性,事实的认定由此成为法官裁判的逻辑起点。但长期以来,法学理论界"重法律、轻事实",对司法裁判中的事实问题缺乏深入的理论研究。而要想了解究竟有哪些因素参与了案件事实的形     

论行政诉讼中的事实问题及其审查

本文旨在研究行政诉讼中构成合法性审查对象的被诉具体行政行为的事实问题及其本质、事实瑕疵之表现和司法审查事实问题的强度。文章认为,事实问题的行为表现是行政主体的事实认定,而事实认定实际上是自由裁量权运行的过程。文章第二部分指出,证据违法、举证责任分配违法、行政推定或行政认知违法、对事实认定违反证明标准都可能导致事实认定瑕疵。文章最后的结论是：中国法院对事实问题的审查强度应以美国法中的合理性标准为原则,根据判决种类、争执点和行政程序保障状况辅之必要的法院调查取证权     

Facts, Fictions or Reasoning. Law as the Subject Matter of Jurisprudence

This paper deals with the problems involved in the concept of knowledge in the sphere of law. Traditionally, the idea of knowledge has dealt with the presumption of given objects of information. According to this approach, knowing means finding these objects. This is the natural and understandable foundation of metaphysical or philosophical realism. Cognition and cognitive interest are directed outside the sentences by which they are described. This is the point of departure of legal positivism as well. However, it is not possible to see valid law as totally independent of language and concepts. This makes the idea of legal facts as institutional facts vague. From a practical viewpoint, the sentences of judges and legal scholars, when they present valid law, justify rather than describe. Their crucial function is interpretation. Hence, the objectivity of these sentences cannot be based on the presumption of separate objects either. Instead, it has to be based on the principles of acceptable reasoning. Moreover, the author claims that this kind of approach, united with the utilization of human rights and substantial legal principles, leads one to acknowledge objective values.     

论客观事实和法律事实

~~论客观事实和法律事实@朱永红$河北政法职业学院!河北石家庄050061 @张苏敏$河北政法职业学院!河北石家庄050061~~~~①例如，据2003年12月5日《南方都市报》报道，2001年9月，广东省四会市法院法官莫兆军开庭审理李某状告张某夫妇等4人借款1万 元纠纷案，原告李某持有被告张某夫妇的借条，被告辩称借条是被李某持刀威逼所写，但被告不能就此举证。经审理，莫兆军作出判决， 认为借条有效，被告应予还钱。2001年11月14日，张某夫妇在四会市法院门外喝农药自杀身亡。随后公安机关传唤李某、冯某两人， 两人承认借条系他们…     

法的不确定性与可推导性

实在法是一个不完全的、非协调的、开放的体系。实在法是不确定的、可推导的和可修正的。立法者不可能为每个具体案件都准备好现成的法律答案,法官们不得不在法律不确定条件下探寻解决当前案件的裁决理由。解决法律不确定性的过程是一个法律推理的过程,可以将这些法律推理概括为：解释推导、还原推导、演绎与类比推导、辩证推导、衡平推导。法律的不确定性问题以及如何解决它的问题,是法律逻辑的中心问题与重大课题,应当而且能够从逻辑学角度出发进行研究。以往“经典逻辑加法律例证”的法律逻辑体系,不涉及也不可能解答法律的不确定性及其推导问题．没有充分涵盖法律领域中的推理与论证．不能作为法律逻辑的基本框架和主要内容。     

论法律事实与客观事实

法律事实与客观事实的一般关系是 ,客观事实是法律事实的基础 ,法律事实是客观事实的再现或者反映 ,法律事实必须以客观事实为追求目标。法律事实对客观事实的追求是通过一系列证据法上的制度设计实现的 ,能否最大限度地确保法律事实与客观事实相一致 ,是衡量证据规则是否成功的基本标志。法律事实一般应当与客观事实相符合 ,但由于种种原因 ,也可能产生不一致的情况 ,包括无奈的不一致、错误的不一致和有意的不一致。     

Legal Indeterminacy and/as Professional Expertise

One of my concerns here has to do with what I perceive as the possible elision of the normative possibilities of law– and, therefore, the possibility of a more democratically meaningful understanding of justice in the space provided by law. It is an attempt to think seriously about the claim that ``law provides a terrain of contestation on which the powerless can hold the powerful to account by insisting that [the] legitimating rhetoric [of liberal legalism] be turned into action.'     

事实推定:事实认定困境克服之手段

事实推定是为了帮助法官解决事实认定困难而设计的技术手段.运作机理是通过人工构建推理前提推导出要件事实.为确保推定事实的真实性,事实推定需要遵守三个基本要求:依据经验法则选择事物之间的常态联系作为推理前提,并允许受不利影响的当事人对推定事实进行反驳.     

法律的不确定性与法治的可能性

法律的不确定性并不意味着法律合法性的丧失和法治理想破灭。法律体系必然包括不确定的法律。法律不确定性与法律的客观性是相容的。主流法律理论并不必然坚持法律的确定性立场,但是必然坚持法律的客观性立场。法治理念的经典阐述者富勒、拉兹和菲尼斯都强调法律的明确性、可预测性和稳定性。他们都没有把法律的确定性列为法治的要件。法律的不确定性意味着法官在疑难案件中需要行使自由裁量权并创制新的法律。只要不确定的司法判决具有合法性、客观性和可预测性,即使法律是不确定的,法治理想的实现也是可能的。     

Implications of Indeterminacy: Naturalism in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Law II

In a circulated but heretofore unpublished 2001 paper, I argued that Leiter’s analogy to Quine’s “naturalization of epistemology” does not do the philosophical work Leiter suggests. I revisit the issues in this new essay. I first show that Leiter’s replies to my arguments fail. Most significantly, if – contrary to the genuinely naturalistic reading of Quine that I advanced – Quine is understood as claiming that we have no vantage point from which to address whether belief in scientific theories is ever justified, it would not help Leiter’s parallel. Given Leiter’s way of drawing the parallel, the analogous position in the legal case would be not the Legal Realists’ indeterminacy thesis, but the very different position that we have no vantage point from which to address whether legal decisions can ever be justified. I then go on to address the more important question of whether the indeterminacy thesis, if true, would support any replacement of important legal philosophical questions with empirical ones. Although Ronald Dworkin has argued against the indeterminacy thesis, if he were wrong on this issue, it would not in any way suggest that the questions with which Dworkin is centrally concerned cannot fruitfully be addressed. The indeterminacy thesis is a bone of contention in an ordinary philosophical debate between its proponents and Dworkin. Of course, if the determinacy thesis were true, no one should try to show that it is false, but this triviality lends no support to the kind of replacement proposal that Leiter proposes. I conclude with some general reflections on naturalism and philosophical methodology.     

Equality and Constitutional Indeterminacy An Interpretative Perspective on the European Economic Constitution

It is claimed that European supranationalism represents an unprecedented mode of political association whose point is to maintain what is good about nationality and the nation state by stripping the latter of its adverse effects. In this article, this claim is submitted to a test by examining how different ways of conceiving of anti‐discrimination in the context of intra‐Community trading law give rise to two different conceptions of the European economic constitution. While the first one is married to the ideal of behavioural anti‐discrimination–that is, of affording protection against discriminatory acts by Member States–whose application would seemingly leave the nation state in its place, the other one takes a system of nation states as something that in and of itself engenders systematically discriminatory effects on international trade. According to the latter, effective anti‐discrimination presupposes overcoming such a system altogether. Both conceptions of the economic constitution are manifest in Community law, and at first glance it appears as if adherence to the first one would be consonant with supranationality as a special mode of political association. However, owing to internal predicaments arising from the application of the equality principle (understood as a principle protecting against discrimination), the difference between both conceptions cannot be upheld in practice. Since the first conception is constantly undermined by the second in the course of its application, it remains uncertain, at least in this context, whether or not the European nation state is left in place by the European Economic Constitution.     

论已决事实的预决效力

大陆法系的主流观点和通行制度不承认判决理由具有既判力,说明已决事实不具有预决效力。我国民诉法未明确已决事实是否具有预决效力,不同的司法解释对此问题虽有规定但存在冲突,且都与民诉法基本原则相悖。当前司法实践中解决这一问题应当坚持现行民诉法奉行的“实事求是”原则,实行“再审前置”,即在后诉当事人提出足以推翻前诉已决事实的证据情况下,中止后诉审理,待通过再审纠正前诉已决事实后,恢复后诉审理。未来修改后的我国民诉法则应当否定已决事实具有预决效力。