Legalist Fictions and the Problem of Scientific Legitimation

The author analyzes fictions of legal positivist philosophy and their role in the scientific legitimation of modern law and political domination. The original function of legalist fictions was the establishment of legal science, which would be autonomous and independent of other social sciences and public morality. In the second half of the 20th century, legal positivist philosophy has nevertheless adopted the fiction of the just law as its scientific legitimation fiction and incorporated moral and political discourse into legal science, again.
Legal positivism and its critiques within the discourse of the sociology of law and critical legal science keep the image of a hierarchical and centralized legitimation of law. Paradoxically, current legal philosophy and theory searching for a universally valid legitimation scheme is full of many different legitimations and reveals their growing plurality and the impossibility of establishing one sovereign legitimation scheme in the current social, theoretical and political condition.     

马克斯·韦伯法律社会学中的方法论问题

作为其全部社会理论的一个组成部分,马克斯·韦伯的法律社会学是建立在一套较为系统的社会科学方法论基础之上的。正是根据这一方法论以及具体的理想类型方法,韦伯提出了法秩序的社会学概念,对法律制度进行了类型学分析,并对法律制度进行了比较研究。从根本上说,韦伯是站在外部观察者的立场上对法律制度进行探究的,但是他始终无法从根本上摆脱他所反对的价值判断。     

公法理论的创新与研究范式的突破——对统一公法学的证成性阐释

本文是对统一公法学的证成性研究.全文以统一公法学的现有研究成果为基础,从理论标识、认识论和方法论三个方面来进行证成性的阐释与研究,解读其理论内涵与脉络.并且认为,作为一种认识论,统一公法学的理论标识已经确立,其理论体系基本形成,是一种原始性的理论创新;作为一种方法论,统一公法学具有了自己的研究进路,其研究视野非常独特,是一种全新的研究范式.全文旨在最终表明:统一公法学不仅是一种理论上的凝练,而且是一种方法论的指导.     

Legal Validity, Acceptance of Law, Legitimacy. Some Critical Comments and Constructive Proposals

In this paper the author first presents a critical account of some basic views of Habermas' Discourse Philosophy. He points out some difficulties inherent in notions such as valid justification in argumentation theory, in the notion of ideal form of discourses, and in consensus theory of truth. Secondly, he focuses on Habermas' conceptions of validity, acceptance and legitimacy of law from the perspective of neo-institutionalism. In particular, (i) the author argues that Habermas' definition of legal validity is unclear and unrealistic; (ii) the author stresses the distinction between acceptance and acceptability; (iii) Habermas presupposes harmony between sovereignty and human rights postulates, but the present author takes into account the possibility of conflicts between autonomous popular decisions and human rights which must be resolved by methods of discursive democracy; (iv) criteria for acceptance of law cannot be fixed by a stipulative definition, but are in social discussion; (v) legitimacy is not an objective feature of valid law and presupposes an evaluation based on our political convictions.     

《道路交通安全法》第七十六条运行实效考察

《道路交通安全法》第七十六条关于交通事故处理的规定引起社会的强烈关注,其运行实效究竟如何?从法律运行实效的视角,运用法律社会学的法律实效理论的研究路径,根据法律实效评判的内在标准和外在标准,依托权威性的“社会事实”,兼采经验实证与逻辑推理的方法,揭示该七十六条的良好实效,展示该法律在实现社会控制中起到的积极作用,吁请人们树立正确的守法观念和守法意识,坚持依法办事,建构良好的法秩序。     

债权人代位权的性质及其构成研究

债权人代位权作为债的保全制度之一 ,源于古罗马法 ,各国立法对代位权制度抢持不同态度 ,不仅源于法律体系和法律观念在逻辑上的考量 ,更是基于特定社会生活情势下不同的价值需求。文章认为对代位权性质的考察应是多维视角的综合 ,指出债权人代位权性质上为基于债之效力而发生之实体上权利 ,其内容兼具形成权和管理权的双重特质。关于债权人代位权的构成要件 ,文章从理论及比较法的视角对现行立法规定进行了学理上的评价与重构。     

证据法学的理论基础

认识论是证据法学的理论基础之一 ,追求客观真实是刑事诉讼的主要目标之一。认识活动是判决的基础 ,构成了诉讼活动的主要内容 ,其中在审判阶段进行的证明活动的就是通过举证、辩论达到说服裁判者使之形成特定认识的活动。证据法的另一重要的理论基础是法律价值及其平衡、选择理论。本文批驳了贬低诉讼中认识活动的意义和将认识论摈除于证据法学理论基础的观点 ,对于证据规则的工具价值进行了正面阐述 ,并对于马克斯·韦伯的“形式理性”的概念进行了诠解 ,同时提出了证据法价值的多元论观点 ,指出对于存在冲突的法律价值应依特定的标准进行权衡和选择。     

The Social Movement Turn in Law

The rise of social movements in US legal scholarship is a current response to an age‐old problem in progressive legal thought: harnessing law for social change while maintaining a distinction between law and politics. This problem erupted in controversy around the civil rights–era concept of legal liberalism defined by activist courts and lawyers pursuing political reform through law. Contemporary legal scholars have responded by building on social science to develop a new concept—movement liberalism—that assigns leadership of transformative change to social movements to preserve conventional roles for courts and lawyers. Movement liberalism aims to achieve the lost promise of progressive reform, while avoiding critiques of legal activism that have divided scholars for a half‐century. Yet rather than resolving the law‐politics problem, movement liberalism reproduces long‐standing debates, carrying forward critical visions of law that it seeks to transcend.     

The Concept of Law Revised—Directives and Norms in the Perspectives of a New Legal Realism

Legal theory usually distinguishes only two kinds of legal realism: the American and the Scandinavian. Another school of this theoretical perspective is German legal realism, which refers to scholars like Ihering, Weber, and Schelsky. According to German legal realism, the author outlines what legal theory can do to persuade modern jurisprudence to face the social reality of law, conceived as institutionalized normative communication. The latter always occurs with reference to already valid and effectively operative legal norms which are used in an established, normatively binding legal practice in a given regional society.     

论最高人民检察院司法解释的实质合理性

最高人民检察院在司法实践中根据检察工作的实际需要不间断地制定司法解释,对检察工作中具体应用法律问题进行解释,为我国法治建设、社会治理做出了应有的贡献.最高人民检察院司法解释的合理性为保障法律统一、正确适用发挥法律监督作用;为填补法律条文的不完善作了积极贡献;为解决司法中新情况新问题提供司法依据等.这些合理性因素充分体现了最高人民检察院司法解释的价值所在.面对当前学界和社会部分人士对最高人民检察院司法解释的实质合理性的种种质疑,需要从检察价值合理性、检察目的合理性、检察实践合理性三方面进行论证,以期待人们正确认识最高人民检察院司法解释的实质合理性.     

法理论:历史形成、学科属性及其中国化

要破除部门法学因过度教义化形成的学科壁垒,不能走向要求法学无条件地向其他社会科学全面开放的极端,而应该深化和发展法理论研究。通过历史的梳理可以发现,科学范式的转换、传统法哲学的衰落和部门法学的内在诉求构成了法理论研究形成的背景。它发端于历史法学时期,以19世纪的法学百科全书运动为其先声,而其作为独立的法学分支学科则经历了创始、成熟和多样化三个阶段,从一开始的分析法理论逐渐发展为包括多种进路在内的宽泛领域。法理论是一门从内部观察者的视角出发,通过研究基本法律概念来致力于法律知识的一般化与体系化的关于实在法的规范学科,包括法的理论与法律科学理论两部分。它对部门法学发挥着体系构造、学说批判和知识筛选功能,构成部门法学之知识和方法的法理。当下中国的法理论研究,要在兼容并蓄的基础上与部门法学形成良性互动,提升研究的整体自洽性和一般性,加强分析法理论和社会法理论方法间的分工与合作。     

法学知识的属性与进步

法学理论的创新是当下学术界法治论式中的一种普遍诉求 ,但是 ,法学理论研究中的这种创新努力是建立在科学主义的法学本体论和方法论基础上的。自 1 9世纪以来形成的科学主义对人文社会科学的影响不仅在西方 ,而且在中国都是深远、厚重的 ,这种科学主义对我国法学理论和法律实践的负面影响也是广泛深刻的。由于法学理论作为一种人文社会科学知识与科学有着十分广泛且重要的区别 ,因此 ,尽管我们需要在法学理论的研究中坚持科学精神 ,但科学主义却是我们应当警惕的。否则 ,围绕理论创新所进行的各种努力恰恰可能滞碍我们所希望得到的进步     

社会法的定位和未来

本文以对传统部门法划分理论的批判为切入点 ,定位社会法。作者认为 ,公法与私法的融合或交叉并不一定是社会法 ,社会法也不是泛义上的公法与私法融合性法律的代名词 ,而是具有特有调整对象的、具有现代属性的一类法律。这类法律与宪法、民法、刑法、诉讼法、行政法、经济法一起构成中国特色的社会主义法律体系。同时 ,作者指出了社会法与法社会学的界别问题。此外 ,作者还分析了社会法及社会法学的未来。     

Law's Social Forms: A Powerless Approach to the Sociology of Law

Since the law and society movement in the 1960s, the sociology of law in the United States has been dominated by a power/inequality approach. Based on a sociological distinction between the forms and substances of law, this article outlines a “powerless” approach to the sociology of law as a theoretical alternative to the mainstream power/inequality approach. Following Simmel and the Chicago School of sociology, this new approach analyzes the legal system not by its power relations and patterns of inequality, but by its social forms, or the structures and processes that constitute the legal system's spatial outlook and temporality. Taking a radical stance on power, this article is not only a retrospective call for social theory in law and society research, but also a progressive effort to move beyond US‐centric sociolegal scholarship and to develop new social science tools that explain a larger variety of legal phenomena across the world.     

Positive Law and Systemic Legitimacy: A Comment on Hart and Habermas*

Abstract
The author revisits H. L. A. Hart's theory of positive law and argues for a major qualification to the thesis of the separation of law and morality based on a concept of systemic legitimacy derived from the social theory of Jurgen Habermas. He argues that standards for assessing the degree of systemic legitimacy in modern legal systems can develop through reflective exercise of "critical legality," a concept coined to parallel Hart's "critical morality," and an expanded understanding of the "external" and "internal" perspectives on legal systems. Following Habermas, he argues that modern positive law must retain systemic legitimacy. After suggesting criteria for measuring systemic legitimacy, the author concludes that the concept provides a useful approach to contemporary problems of "lawless" regimes and "law's imperialism."     

Information, Litigation, and Common Law Evolution

It is common in the legal academy to describe judicial decisiontrends leading to new common law rules as resulting from consciousjudicial effort. Evolutionary models of litigation, in contrast,treat common law as resulting from pressure applied by litigants.One apparent difficulty in the theory of litigation is explaininghow trends in judicial decisions favoring one litigant, andbiasing the legal standard, could occur. This article presentsa model in which an apparent bias in the legal standard canoccur in the absence of any effort toward this end on the partof judges. Trends can develop favoring the better-informed litigantwhose case is also meritorious. Although the model does notsuggest an unambiguous trend toward efficient legal rules, itdoes show how private information from litigants becomes embodiedin common law, an important part of the theory of efficientlegal rules.     

司法决策中的“父爱主义”管制逻辑

在包括赵春华案在内的诸多引发舆论关注的争议案件中,法官或许并非不是不懂得如何利用社科法学的判断能力与法教义学的裁判技术去弥合司法标准与公众认知之间的巨大断裂,而更可能是基于其“父爱”式的社会“管制”取向而对司法后果的实质合理性问题做出了“爱之深,责之切”的价值决断。在中国特色社会主义法律体系已经形成的历史背景下,为了保证良法的颁行能够导向预期的善治,法律必须以其作为“社会交往机制”的系统潜力而彰显其公理性与司法的合理性。只有首先确立基于交往原则和承认社会自主性的权力逻辑与法律决策结构,那种体现“人性化”“人文化”和“人权化”的方法论逻辑才有可能在法律的运作中获得国家体制官僚无法武断拒斥的实效。     

Don’t Occupy This Movement: Thinking Law in Social Movements

Reflecting on the Occupy movement, particularly Occupy Wall Street, this article begins by addressing two major questions: how are social movements understood by legal academics; and how do social movements engage with law? Our aim is to present an alternative frame to understanding law and social movements. We draw on the work of Jean-Luc Nancy to explore law as both present and constituted in the coming together of persons in common which occurs in social movements. While the Occupy movement does engage with a form of law that is legislated and enacted through the government and legal system of a nation-state, the movement also forms and enacts law as part of its own processes. In this article we shift perspectives and attempt to think law within social movements. This involves a critical reading of some dominant approaches that explore social movements and law. Rather than situate our discussion within boundaries that seek to identify what is inside or outside a law and legal system that is determined and enforced by a nation-state (government and judicial system), our discussion of law involves a re-thinking of law. This law is part of a constant negotiation and it is involved in the dynamic processes of movements. Law involves establishing a limit and tracing this limit, but this limit is un-working itself as soon as it is constituted. The Occupy movements live law by existing not outside the law, but by rethinking the role and function of law in the movement and processes of community.     

Max Weber on the Labour Contract: Between Realism and Formal Legal Thought

Although Max Weber's review essay of the first part of Philipp Lotmar's The Labour Contract may appear peripheral to his overall contribution to legal sociology, it contains important insights on the relationship of law to economics, the utility of sociological empirical research for jurisprudence, the epistemological gap between 'legal dogmatics' and the sociology of law, and the fundamental distinction between state and non-state law in properly understanding the developmental logic of labour law.
In the review, far from appearing as a rigid partisan of positivistic legal formalism, Weber admits of a kind of 'legal pluralism' as a necessary path to the sociology of law, and allows some measure of realism, when celebrating Lotmar's analysis of the social facts of law as a precondition for proper juristic treatment of the labour contract. Nevertheless, Weber remained distrustful of legal realism which, for him, was founded on an epistemological confusion between 'is' and 'ought'.     

法律效果与社会效果的统一——中国法院角色定位的失误

本文通过对“法律效果与社会效果的统一”相关概念的辨析,通过探讨这一提法的本意,引用者的目的以及受束的理解,笔者将“法律效果”界定为法律本身对法律行为合法性的评判,将“社会效果”界定为社会各阶层从其自身利益出发对法律及其实施的合理性评判,认为法律效果与社会效果相统一的载体不应该只是法院的司法行为,而包括普遍的法律行为。法律行为的法律效果和社会效果相统一是法治社会、和谐社会的一种状态：这种状态的实现是一个渐进的过程,是整个社会走向真正法治,趋向和谐的漫长过程,不是某一个机构在短时间内能够实现的。因此,实现法律效果和社会效果相统一,是权力机关、行政机关、司法机关乃至每个公民的共同任务。法院将其作为自身独自完成的目标是其角色定位的失误。