T. Weatherall,Jus Cogens: International Law and Social Contract

Netherlands International Law Review -     

国际强行法之理论考察

自第二次世界大战以来,强行法已逐步成为维护世界秩序的一种法律准则.但强行法的概念最初却来自于国内法,当今各国国内法上的强行法规则仍不胜枚举,而关于国际强行法的理论则存在着不同学说,这些学说中的合理成分后来为强行法理论所吸纳.构成了国际强行法的理论基础.     

强行法在国际商事仲裁中的适用

意思自治原则允许合同当事人选择支配其合同的实体法。在国际商事仲裁领域,仲裁员能否适用当事人所没有选择的相关强行法,理论认识中还存在分歧。从国际实践来看,合同履行地国的强行法被认为是与合同的联系更为密切,从而能够在仲裁中得以适用。强行法在国际商事仲裁中的适用是个不争的事实。在适用强行法方面,仲裁员的主要作用在于界定实体法,确定合同履行地及仲裁裁决实施地,甄别、解释有关的强行性法律。而强行法的适用同样有其特定的冲突规范,强行法在国际商事仲裁领域中的适用,构成对当事人选择支配合同实体法的自由的一个限制。     

论国际强行法之酷刑禁止

禁止酷刑从日内瓦公约的最初萌芽到<禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约>的确立,走过了一段漫长的路程.二战后,随着国际社会对人权问题的关注,国际社会整体接受并不许损抑的国际强行法出台,酷刑禁止也上升到了一个更高的层次.现今,酷刑禁止已成为国际强行法律规范,酷刑成为任何国家均有权管辖的行为,因为"尊重人的尊严的价值在重要性上要远远超出对酷刑所做的任何辩解".     

国际法上的“强行法”规范初探

国际法上的"强行法"规范是指由全体国际社会成员所公认且在缔约时不能贬损的那些国际法律规范,对此类规范的存在,国际社会已经形成普遍共识;其最初适用范围仅仅限于国家的缔约行为,但随后逐渐及于其它国家行为;国际法学说、条约及国际司法实践初步确认了某些具体的规则具有"强行法"规范的性质,但关于"强行法"的更为明确或具体的范畴问题,国际社会远未达成普遍共识,因而在"强行法"规范的识别及具体适用上存在相当困难;经过深入的国际法理论研究和有力倡导以及长期的国际法实践的推演,国际法上的"强行法"规范更有可能通过习惯国际法的方式加以产生;在条件成就时,再由习惯国际法规则演变或制定为条约国际法规则。     

The Current Political Discourse Concerning International Law

Reading current statements of world leaders on subjects relevant to international law is liable to cause confusion, even distress to those for whom the 1945 regulatory arrangements, as completed in the post‐Cold War era, have become the norm. On occasions international law is invoked, but in what seems an increasingly antagonistic way, amounting often to a dialogue of the deaf. At other times it is apparently or even transparently ignored. This touches many of the arrangements governments spent the preceding period seeking to establish. Is there a pattern to all this, and how should we respond? How susceptible is the edifice of international law to such rhetoric? These issues are examined in the context of the law of withdrawal from treaties. Three recent high profile examples are examined: Brexit, South Africa's purported withdrawal from the Rome Statute, and the United States’ announced withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.     

The Legal Discourse of the Common Law: A Game of Chess

English law, like any otherspecialized topic, needs a particular languagefor its understanding. The legal discourse ofthe common law gathers a set of theoretical andcustomary mechanisms subject to internal orexternal intrusions into its directions foruse. Two ideas are highlighted: the rigidity ofthe overall regulating structure of the law,and the use of `fuzzy sets' to provideflexibility to legal discourse. This unsteadyor fuzzy discourse production proves thislanguage to be the result of a long and complexhistorical process of socialisation. Theseinteractions of reference and of wordinglegitimate a mode of precise and technicalinstitutional stratification, combining bothconstruction and argumentation.     

Cyber Law Terminology as a New Lexical Field in Legal Discourse

The cyber domain is one of the newest and most rapidly evolving fields of knowledge which has led to the development of a new area of law—cyber law, that regulates the use of the Internet and activities performed over the Internet and other networks. The cyber domain is particularly dynamic: new concepts are constantly developed and need new terminological designations, which in turn need new counterparts in other languages. Formation of these designations and their counterparts often raises terminological issues that are important to deal with in order to develop a coherent system of the cyber domain terms. The given paper focuses on the terminology that includes the lexical item cyber which may be considered as the main signifier of the cyber domain indicating its specific nature. The aim of the paper is threefold: to analyse the origin and development of the lexical item cyber, to investigate conceptual categories of the EU legislation terminology that includes the lexical item cyber and to establish the Lithuanian counterparts that are used for translation of the lexical item cyber in the Lithuanian equivalents of the English terms. For the purposes of the study, the ad hoc English and Lithuanian corpora of the EU legislative documents were compiled. Corpus-driven methodology was used to extract and investigate the terminology used in the corpora. The results of the research are believed to provide useful information to learners and teachers of the legal language and legal translation, as well as drafters of legislative and administrative documents and other professionals engaged in cybersecurity matters.

     

格老秀斯与他的时代:自然法、海洋法权与国际法秩序

雨果·格老秀斯(Hugo Grotius)所处的16世纪,可谓西方历史的巨变时期,一般说到近现代政治与法律思想,我们自然会想到英国、法国、德国乃至美国,其实深究起来,上述诸国的法政思想基本上都是在文艺复兴之后逐渐生长和培育出来的,16、17世纪主要是法国思想的世纪,18世纪是英国思想的世纪,19世纪属于德国.     

国际信托的法律冲突与法律适用

在各国法律制度存在差异的情况下,如何解决国际信托法律冲突的难题,已逐渐引起世界各国理论界和实务界的重视。对国际信托法律冲突问题进行探讨的目的在于,就国际信托法律适用的国际立法与国外立法作深入研究。随着我国加入WTO和改革开放的不断深入,国际信托业务在我国将取得进一步发展。我国目前的国际私法立法尚无信托冲突法,因此,完善我国的国际信托法律适用规则是当务之急。     

法学话语中的法律解释规则

法律解释方法的核心是法律解释规则,即各种理解、解释和运用法律的规则。几乎所有关于法律解释方法的理论,其目标都是探寻法律解释规则的构建与运用。为了证成这一判断,梳理与不同意识形态相匹配的具体法律方法很有必要。这种概括不是对法律方法纯粹历史的考察,重心在于说明法律解释规则的实践意义。我国的法律方法论研究即将进入第二个发展阶段,即在关注一般理论研究的基础上,开始法律解释规则及其运用研究。这是展现法学理论和法律方法论实用品格的开始。对法律解释规则的认识可以从多个角度展开,重点从法治意识形态、法律方法的进化以及与相近概念的比较三个方面进行诠释。     

法律全球化与共同法发现--中德日法学研讨会会议综述

20 0 4年 1 0月 9日至 1 1日由中国政法大学中德法学院和比较法研究所主办的“中德日法学研讨会”在北京友谊宾馆召开。参加本次会议的代表主要有来自中国、德国和日本的学者 ,此外还有韩国、瑞典等国家和地区的学者共近 2 0 0人 ,研讨会收到论文 (中文、德文、英文和日文 ) 80     

我国近30年“依法治税”的理论言说——基于法律话语的分析

改革开放30年以来,"依法治税"在我国税法学以及税收实务界获得了广泛认同。通过法律话语分析可知,"依法治税"是上世纪80年代后期以来在我国形成的独特话语现象,其理论言说的话语主体为政府官员,其言说的内容是使用法律(包括政策)"治"理税收。这样一种自上而下加以推行的"依法治税"模式在改革开放之初具有一定的进步性,但是随着"税收法治"的发展,"依法治税"理论言说开始式微,并且成为阻碍进一步推动税收法治的话语障碍。     

论食品安全国际法律规制中的软法

食品安全国际法律规制中的软法主要表现为跨政府治理网络中的国际软法和有关国际组织制定的国际软法。前者是指不同国家的食品安全政府职能部门之间以双边备忘录等形式达成的非条约性协议。后者是指专业性国际组织、区域性国际组织和国际非政府组织制定的与食品安全相关的指导建议、行动计划、原则宣言和标准等国际文件。这些没有法律约束力但具有实际效力的国际软法在食品安全国际法律规制中发挥着独特的补充和辅助功能,理应引起我们的关注。     

Legal Transnationalism: The Relationship between Transnational Social Movement Building and International Law

This article examines the compelling enigma of how the introduction of a new international law, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), helped stimulate labor cooperation and collaboration in the 1990s. It offers a theory of legal transnationalism—defined as processes by which international laws and legal mechanisms facilitate social movement building at the transnational level—that explains how nascent international legal institutions and mechanisms can help develop collective interests, build social movements, and, ultimately, stimulate cross‐border collaboration and cooperation. It identifies three primary dimensions of legal transnationalism that explain how international laws stimulate and constrain movement building through: (1) formation of collective identity and interests (constitutive effects), (2) facilitation of collective action (mobilization effects), and (3) adjudication and enforcement (redress effects).