司法审查与民主——矛盾中的共生体?

本文的目的在于消除一个误解:司法审查和民主是相互冲突的.本文通过比较世界各国的宪法文本以及某些国家的制度运作,探讨了司法审查在世界范围的历史、功能和实践,重点是司法审查制度在新兴宪政国家的发展.虽然在司法审查的主体、对象、性质和程序上,不同的审查模式具有显著不同的特征,但都是为了实现保护自由和抗衡专制的共同目的.因此,司法审查和民主都同样履行着反专制职能--如果民主是为了抗衡少数人的专制,那么司法审查是为了抗衡民主体制下的多数人专制.在这个意义上,司法审查和民主之间确实存在一定的矛盾,但在本质上是一对相互依存、相互补充和相互制衡的共生体.     

Judicial Review,Rights, and Democracy

Law and Philosophy -     

Representation and Waldron's Objection to Judicial Review

Jeremy Waldron objects to judicial review of legislation onthe ground that it effectively accords the views of a few judges‘superior voting weight’ to those of ordinary citizens.This objection overlooks that representative government doesthe same. This article explores the concept of political representationand argues that delegates may be institutionally bound to heedthe convictions of their constituents, but they are not theirproxies. Rather, they are best viewed as their trustees. Theyought to decide according to what they think is in their constituents’interest. In this sense, a strong element of independent judgmentis involved in their institutional role. So, if we have no problemwith assigning their views superior voting weight, it shouldnot be thought particularly objectionable to give judges thesame power. What is more, once we acknowledge the independencethey enjoy, the question arises whether and by what institutionalmeans we ought to constrain and check their power. The judiciaryis well suited effectively to carry out this supervisory function,because it is immune from political pressure by the legislaturethat would reduce it to its instrument. Hence, in some casesthe institution of judicial review is morally justified.     

Judicial Review and Deliberative Democracy: A Circular Model of Law Creation and Legitimation

In this paper the author discusses the legitimation of judicial review of legislation. He argues that such a legitimation is not just a moral matter but is to be considered more generally in terms of societal acceptability, since it is based on a wide range of reasons including moral, social and pragmatic concerns. Moreover, the paper stresses that the legitimation of judicial decisions should be properly viewed in a circular perspective, so that the relationship between legislators and judges cannot be reduced to an absolute supremacy of those who are democratically elected over those who apply the law. On the contrary, the law is constantly made, adapted and developed in legal practice and legal decisions are basically legitimated through several processes of deliberative communication.     

Less Democracy, More Courts: A Puzzle of Judicial Review in Russia

This article explores why, throughout the 1990s, some Russian regions created their own constitutional courts and others did not. Contrary to current theories that assert that politicians create a strong and independent judiciary to protect them from the tyranny of election-winners in the context of political uncertainty, my analysis finds that constitutional courts emerged only in those regions where governors virtually guaranteed their re-election by consolidating their political power vis-à-vis federal and local governments. The article argues that both federal and regional politicians used the process of creating subnational constitutional courts to legitimize their federalism and judicial reforms. The changes in the balance of power between those governors, who aspired to have their own judicial system, and the federal government that insisted on a single federal judicial system, determined the variation in the process of court-building across Russian regions.     

Moral Rights,Judicial Review,and Democracy: A Response to Horacio Spector

Law and Philosophy -     

行政立法司法审查之成因

在我国,法院在行政诉讼中对于作为行政行为依据的行政立法不具有审查权,而其他国家则毫无例外地将这种审查权赋予了法院。法院在诉讼中之所以必须审查行政立法,不仅是由于议会审查和行政审查存在着缺陷,而且也是由于司法权的特点决定的。法院的这种审查权是行政诉讼制度发挥功能的必要条件,没有这种审查权,法院对具体行政行为的合法性审查就无法落实。     

注册商标无效抗辩司法审查问题初探

商标侵权的民事诉讼中,被控侵权人提出注册商标无效进行抗辩时,法院因无权直接对注册商标效力做出判决,导致纠纷解决程序复杂,效率低下。借鉴国外的相关制度,在现有法律规则内,法院应积极审查当事人提出的注册商标无效抗辩事由是否成立,并在此基础上继续对侵权纠纷审理判决。     

死刑复核程序中的律师辩护

在司法实践中,死刑复核程序中的律师辩护状况堪忧.死刑复核程序的行政化是导致辩护权行使不畅的根源,死刑复核程序应从行政报核程序转化为典型的诉讼程序,并以此为基础,对死刑复核程序中的律师辩护制度进行改革.     

论国际商事仲裁的司法审查与立法完善

作为司法外解决争议手段的国际商事仲裁兼具契约性和司法性的混合特质,从而使得法院对于这一制度进行审查成为必要与必然。仲裁的司法审查包含三方面的内容,仲裁开庭前的司法审查,仲裁程序进行中的司法审查,仲裁裁决作出后的司法审查。仲裁作出后对裁决的司法审查尤为重要;但这种审查必须是适度的,应当承认仲裁裁决的终局性,简化和明确司法审查的范围和标准,审查应以支持和协助为主,控制和干预为辅。支持和促进仲裁发展是法院行使这一权力的立足点。我国应当借鉴国际上的先进做法,通过对《仲裁法》的修改,建立适度的司法审查制度。     

Constitutional Rights and Democracy in the U.S.A.: The Issue -of Judicial Review

Abstract. The first section takes up some main details of American constitutional history. At the end of that section and in section two, we concentrate on one constitutional doctrine in particular, judicial review. We argue that this doctrine rests, traditionally, on the foundational idea of a permanent tension between democratic institutions and basic rights. In section three, we deal with the problem just raised, by suggesting an alternative view of the relationship that exists between these fundamental constitutional elements. Here we attempt to show that there is an essential principled harmony between basic constitutional rights and democratic majority rule. And we try to locate judicial review within this alternative conception. Then in section four and in the conclusion we discuss the institutional arrangements for the practice of judicial review in the light of this alternative conception.     

民主过程的司法审查:法国议会选举诉讼制度评析

选举是实现国家机关政治统治合法性与正当性的制度基础。保证选举活动合法进行、依法解决选举争议是依法治国的重要内容。由议会自己来审查议员选举合法性问题的制度在法国被证明是失败的。从第五共和国开始,法国的宪法委员会承担了选举法院的角色,审理国会议员选举争议案件。法国议会选举争议裁决制度的发展过程、审查原则、处理程序对中国相关制度的完善有重要的启发意义。     

司法审查：一种动态民主的机制

从代议民主的角度看,司法审查和民主之间确实存在着矛盾,美国司法审查的几种理论路径不能解释清楚司法审查正当性的问题,伊利的程序主义理论回避司法审查合法性的实体问题即国会立法违背宪法的客观标准为何,宪法文本的不确定性使得司法审查的客观标准成为一个难题,但是如果从动态的民主参与方面看,对国会立法进行违宪审查的目的是建立一种动态的参与民主机制,在代议民主和大众之间建立沟通的桥梁,使民众的话语得到张扬,让民主运转起来,故美国确立司法审查的理论基础是动态的参与民主机制。     

Rights-Based Judicial Review: A Democratic Justification

Law and Philosophy -     

掀开法律的男权主义面纱——对中国当代性犯罪立法的文化解读与批判

我国当代的性犯罪立法中还残留着许多男权主义的印记,具体表现为:受男主女从的文化影响,把强奸罪的实行主体限定为男子,受害人限定为女子;受生殖文化的影响,将强奸中性交的概念定义为男女生殖器的媾合;由于将强奸视为对男人权利的侵犯,因而对其引起的纠纷由国家垄断处理权.现行立法与社会现实存在着一定的矛盾,因此,立足中国现实,借鉴西方经验,改革我国现行的性犯罪立法是当务之急.     

立法过时的司法应对——评卡拉布雷西《制定法时代的普通法》

卡拉布雷西的《制定法时代的普通法》一书提出了一种制定法之上的普通法权力来应对日益突出的立法过时现象,而这种权力存在的正当性依据有两个:多数主义和法律图景。但是,由于卡拉布雷西缺乏对多数主义的前提性批判以及未能为法律图景提供一个可欲的方向,没有意识到普通法系中两种规则的划分,其结果将使普通法降格为受到多数主义决定的制定法之下的普通法,这恰是走向了卡氏理论意图的反面。当下中国司法在面对立法过时时承担了积极的作用,但是依然不能摆脱立法民主合法性与司法应对立法过时之间存在的困境。     

立法博弈的规制及其程序表现

立法权限的划分设定了一定层级中立法博弈的前提或限度,立法起草、立法审议和立法表决等诸环节中的程序规范既要将立法博弈及其利益裁量、价值衡量予以客观写实,又要对其可能的冲击予以适度管控.立法博弈应当在宪法和法律的基本准则与社会的核心价值体系之上,确立其中的利益甄别基准与利益调整方案.在转型发展时期,立法博弈的复杂程度致使立法中的交涉、妥协和对于法律规范的设计、表述的认同度都充满了不确定性.由此,应当进一步细化立法基本原则和立法体制机制,加强对立法博弈的深入揭示和程序引领,从而提升立法质量和效益.     

情理推断在刑事证明中的规范运作 以事实证成理论为分析框架

情理推断是以经验知识为前提的推论,其在司法证明中的作用是必要但危险的。我国现行印证证明模式中并没有包容情理推断的空间,但其却在实践中隐性运作,同时因缺少约束机制而易于导致权力滥用甚至恣意裁判。为化解合法性与正当性危机,有必要规范情理推断在司法证明中的运作。然而,传统印证证明理论的外部视角,无法描摹司法证明的全貌,可以引入一种内部观察视角作为补充。司法证明在结构上是包含价值判断的论证式经验推论,事实认定因而具有似真性。在似真性证明的制度语境中,情理推断作用于从证据命题推导出案件事实的证明过程之中,辅助裁判者认定并证成对事实的确信。在该事实证成的理论分析框架中,情理推断的规范运作需要以认知开放的竞争性论辩程序为场域,以包容性的证明方法体系为前提;为防止权力滥用,还应给裁判者施加事实证成义务。