二元规范理论下的法律原则检讨

当下法律原则理论的论争重心,已从"法律是什么"的概念分析,转向了司法实践中的原则裁判。自德沃金以来的"规则-原则"二元规范理论,对实际的司法裁判的解说力和作用力较为有限,也未能解决原则权衡这一关键性问题。"融贯性"命题和"籍由法政策权衡进行裁判"命题,是原则裁判理论的两大基石。但德沃金对融贯性命题的回答过于抽象,而阿列克希依比例原则和权重公式对权衡命题和原则理论的最新推进,却是一种不成功的自反性进化。这种自反性进化和理论反讽,表明作为一种"过度整合式"的裁判理论,原则裁判已然走到了穷途末路。     

The Theory of Legal Dynamics Reconsidered*

Abstract. The author criticizes Kelsen's distinction between static and dynamic systems of norms and his theory of legal dynamics. The author moreover presents the institutionalist conception of legal dynamics. Kelsen's concept of static systems is incompatible with normological scepticism: The deduction of rules from a basic principle depends on additional premises; even in static systems there is a kind of dynamics produced by actual facts. Kelsen's conception of legal dynamics is also incompatible with normological scepticism and with Kelsen's demand of purity of jurisprudence. In the institutionalist conception Iegal dynamics is rather conceived as an interplay of legal norms and facts. Empowering relations, the principle of co-validity, temporal limits of norms, derogation, legal validity and the basic norm are analysed accordingly. Appendices deal with Paulson's empowering theory of legal norm and Lippold's double-faced reconstruction of the legal order.     

An Autobiographical Aperqu of Legal Philosophy*

Abstract. In his autobiographical sketch, the author surveys sixty years of legal philosophy. He traces the major changes that have come about in the philosophy of law in the wake of the Second World War, and the gap which has been bridged between Continental and Anglo-Saxon theories. The values of liberal democracy and the acknowledgement of human rights have helped to circumvent the gulf between natural law theories and legal positivist theories.     

The Dynamic Order of Norms,Empowerment and Related Concepts

`Authority', `competence' andother related concepts are determined on the basis ofthe concept of law as a dynamic order of norms. Thenorms which regulate the processes of norm creationestablish empowerments (Ermächtigungen). Thematerial domain of validity of the empowering norm iscalled `competence'. The concept of `person' inrelation to empowering norms yields the concepts of`organ' and `authority'. The spatial domain of thevalidity of these norms is the spatial or territorialjurisdiction. This paper analyses the basic norm andits legal functions; it considers the irregularity oflegal acts and norms, as well as the legalconsequences thereof, namely nullity and annulment.Additionally, the Kelsenian `Tacit AlternativeClause' is criticized and a possible solution to theproblem of irregular norms is offered through newdefinitions of the existence, validity and legitimacyof norms.     

Justification and Application of Norms*

Abstract According to the author there is no doubt that one has to distinguish between the justification and the application of norms. Problems are seen only to arise if one asks what exactly the distinction is and which consequences have to be drawn from it. Recently, Klaus Günther, in particular, has searched for this distinction and connected it with far-reaching conclusions concerning the theory of norms, arguments, and morals. His theses are the object of the author's considerations.     

Habermas and Ackerman: A Synthesis Applied to the Legitimation and Codification of Legal Norms*

In this article we consider certain elements of the normative theory of Jürgen Habermas in the light of the proposals of Bruce Ackerman, with a view to strengthening a concept of deliberative democracy applied to the legitimation of juridical rules. We do not construct a hierarchy of the two positions, but seek to bring together certain elements to achieve a common project. As the starting point for examining the work of the two authors, we take the scheme proposed by Habermas in Faktizität und Geltung. In this connection, through the work of Ackerman, we intend to fill in some of the gaps that Habermas appears to have left in the theory of radical democracy applied to the law. The work of Ackerman can make a significant contribution to deliberative democracy, to the discourse principle that Habermas defines, and to the contractualist theories from a liberal perspective. The study of these contributions makes possible a critical judgment that enables the legitimation of juridical rules carried out by Habermas to acquire greater practicity. In examining the epistemological status of juridical science and law, we attempt to determine the weight and the performance of normative democracy. In Tarr's view, it is a matter for philosophers to examine direct democracy and its desirability.     

论行政法规范的援用

行政法的援用既是一个行政法的法律产出技术问题,又是一个行政法的法律适用问题,其在行政法治体系和行政法学体系中本应具有非常重要的地位。但令人不解的是该问题在目前行政法学中还是一个理论空白,理论上的不成熟严重制约了其在行政法治实践中的良性化格局。为了使该问题引起学界的关注并对行政法治进程有所助益,本文对行政法援用的若干重大理论和实践困惑作了初步厘清,并构设了行政法不宜隔位援用、行政法规范规制同一事项不宜多次援用、正式法律渊源不宜用非正式的行为规则、实体规范不宜再作实体性援用、程序性规范不宜再作程序性援用等规范化援用的要件,指出了行政法援用走上规范化的若干路径。     

Sources of Law Are not Legal Norms

Anglo‐American authors have paid little attention to a subtle distinction that has important jurisprudential implications. It is the distinction between sources of law (e.g., statutes, precedents, customs) and the legal norms which can be derived from sources by means of interpretation. The distinction might also be rendered as a threefold one, separating sources of law from legal norms and both of these from that which mediates their relation, namely, methods of legal interpretation. This paper intends to state the “source‐norm” distinction clearly and to give examples of jurisprudential insights that are missed, and mistakes that may be made if the distinction is not given its due.     

司法裁判中法律事实与法律规范的关系

目前,学界关于司法裁判中法律事实与法律规范关系的论述,可以概括为以下四种推论关系、归类与涵摄关系、等置关系、评价关系。这四种方法在司法判决中各有其作用,但是学者们往往各执一端,将四者割裂开来。而实际上,逻辑推论关系确保了推理形式的正确性,而价值评价则保障了推理的实质合理性,归类与涵摄关系重点关注的是法律推理大小前提如何结合的问题,而等置关系似乎可以作为衡量归类或涵摄是否妥当的一个检测器。司法裁判中将四者有机结合起来,才能保证判决的合法性。     

Labour Constitutions and Occupational Communities: Social Norms and Legal Norms at Work

This paper considers the interaction of legal norms and social norms in the regulation of work and working relations, observing that, with the contraction of collective bargaining, this is a matter that no longer attracts the attention that it deserves. Drawing upon two concepts from sociology – Max Weber's ‘labour constitution’ and Seymour Martin Lipset's ‘occupational community’ – it focuses on possibilities for the emergence, within groups of workers, of shared normative beliefs concerning ‘industrial justice’ (Selznick); for collective solidarity and agency; for the transformation of shared beliefs into legally binding norms; and for the enforcement of those norms. If labour law is currently in ‘crisis’, then a promising route out of the crisis, we argue, is for the law to recover its procedural focus, facilitating and encouraging these processes.     

Normological Inferences and the Generation of Legal Norms

Abstract. This paper is an answer to Mazzarese (1993) in which the author argues that Kelsen's normological scepticism is a consequence of his theory of legal dynamics and of his views on the relation between higher and lower norms. The author rejects this tenet and reasserts his opinion that there is an essential break between the classical Pure Theory of Law and Kelsen's late doctrine. Therefore an inquiry is justified whether the theses and concepts of the classical Pure Theory are compatible with normological scepticism in Kelsen (1979). Mazzarese's comments on neo-institutionalist views on legal validity are based on a misinterpretation of this conception.     

经济法法律责任:语义、规范及其整体谱系——基于法律文本的实证分析

经济法法律责任是经济法主体违反经济法法律所应承担的不利后果,是经济法违法行为的代价与成本,是实施经济法的关键。对60部经济法法律进行考察,可以发现法律责任条款在其中的分布呈总体集中、少量分散状态,对其进行文本梳理与实证分析,可以基本洞明违法行为与法律责任形式这两大经济法法律责任的规范要件。经济法违法行为有列举式与集束式两种表述方式,总体上以集束式为主、列举式为补充。经济法违法行为可区分为作为式违法行为与不作为式违法行为。经济法法律责任形式可以从具体与抽象两个角度进行划分,经济法法律中的具体法律责任形式有28种,其中7种为新类型法律责任形式。经济法法律责任总体上呈现综合性及以财产责任为主导、与行为责任相结合的基本特征。就经济法法律责任的配置而言,需要根据经济法违法行为的社会危害程度,通过二次分配的方式实现经济法法律责任的有序组合,具体表现为以违法行为是否构成犯罪为界限,以行为主体的身份性质为补充,辅以时间、情节与行为人态度等因素,梯次配置相应的法律责任。     

法律规范冲突的解决方法

法律规范冲突的产生原因包括立法权限界分不清、混淆修宪权和立法权的界限、混淆人民代表大会制度和依法治国的界限。法律规范冲突并行存在于立法、行政、司法场域,民事审判、刑事审判、行政审判中均面临法律规范冲突问题,各场域法律规范冲突的样式不甚相同。上位法优于下位法、特别法优于一般法、新法优于旧法是解决法律规范冲突的三种主要方法,各种方法在具体适用时均面临一些理论和实践难题。     

完善我国行政法律规范体系

充足而优良的行政法律规范是建设法治政府的必要条件之一,然而由于立法的滞后、成文法的传统,以及行政诉讼中法律适用依据的限制,导致优良的行政法律规范供给不足,形成依法行政与优良行政法律规范不足之间的紧张。欲推进法治政府建设进程,首先须解决此难题。途径之一在于不断完善成文行政法律规范的供给机制,之二在于不断挖掘不成文行政法律规范。     

法律规范的意义、结构及表达——一种实证的分析理论

规范性是法律的基本意义或重要特征.法律规范作为关于法律规范性的概念,不仅承载着解说法律规范性来源的理论使命,也作为法律规范性实现的基本条件之规定担当着诠释实证主义法学或"强制"或"规范"的法律规范理论的重任.实证主义法学从"法律之内"解读法律规范性的努力,使法律规范不仅是与道德没有必然联系的逻辑的和观念的意义结构体,而且有自己特殊的表达或表现.对法律规范的概念意义、逻辑结构体及其效力表达进行动态或静态的考察和分析有助于我们系统和深入地认识法律规范问题,进而深化关于法律概念及实践的理论探讨.     

析国际投资法律规范发展之趋势

多边投资协议(简称MAI)是为了推动国际投资自由化而进行的工作之一,后由于多方面的原因而以失败告终。虽然MAI的谈判失败了,其内容却体现了当今国际投资法律的发展趋势。通过对MAI内容的分析,概括出当今国际投资法律规范的一些特征。