The Human Rights Act 1998: research,freedom of speech and academic freedom

This article will consider rights to receive and express information and ideas from the perspective of the researcher, the researched, the researcher's institution and the wider community. It will also consider how the courts will resolve the inevitable conflicts between these rights. It does not address the right to education enshrined in Article 2 of the First Protocol² but rather the other Convention Articles, particularly Article 10, particularly relevant to the conduct of intellectual inquiry. It is intended to underline the potential reach of the Act for all public bodies which seek to be learning organisations, and the consequent need for such bodies to review their practices and procedures before the Act comes into force on 2 October 2000.     

论康德的法权概念

康德从纯粹实践理性出发,使近代世俗的自然法权提升到了先验的理性法权的水平。这一先验的理性法权概念呈现为三个环节,即可能的法权根据(唯一的自由法权)、现实的法权行为(具体的获得法权)和必然的法权状态(普遍的公共法权),其中,每个环节都是一个整体,构成了"全息式"的先验理性法权体系,它成为人们进一步思考现代法权概念所无法回避的一个"永恒的问题"。     

人格自我与意志自由:康德自身意识理论的问题域

近代以来的自身意识理论在实践哲学中所导致的两个根本困境在于:"人格同一性"或道德人格危机与"意志自由"的失落,这构成了康德的自身意识理论必须面对的两个问题域;康德以"纯粹自身意识"与"经验自身意识"的区分以及一种"非对象性"的自身意识建构人格同一性的最终根基.然而,根本上内在于康德形而上学中的"反思模式"无法避免自身意识的"循环困境"而未能在理论哲学领域中解决自身意识理论的自反性而导致的自我"实存"问题与自我"非实体性"之间的悖谬与对立,从而敞开了进入先验自我的"形而上学一实践性"入口,而这种实践性必须基于对人类自由的理解,在这样的理论进路上所伴随的正是自身意识到人格的概念运动.     

国际法的和平软肋——从康德的《永久和平论》说起

国际法是以维护和平与促进发展为根本价值取向的国际法律体系。实现和平的使命是国际法赖以存在的重要基础。康德的永久和平思想重视国际法的制度和组织建设,但忽视了实现和平的心理因素。深受康德永久和平思想影响的现代国际法体系也偏重于法律制度和国际组织的建设,对人类内心和平的建设重视不足。虽然一些国际法律文件和个别国际组织已经意识到了内心和平对世界和平的重要性,并做出了积极努力,但显然还是很不够的。真正的永久和平只能从人的内心开始实现。国际法应该在进一步加强和完善现有国际法制度和国际组织建设的基础上,更加重视人类内心和平的宣传和建设。这是国际法的新使命。     

The Permissive Law of Practical Reason in Kant's Metaphysics of Morals

Law and Philosophy -     

Regina v. Butler: The harms approach and freedom of expression

In Regina v. Butler the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly accepted the argument that obscenity law should be based on harm rather than morality. The court's opinion, and the view of certain feminists, depends heavily on social science research that shows exposure to some pornographic materials may have harmful effects. However, an analysis of these studies indicates that the findings encompass a wide range of stimuli and are not limited to pornography. Based on the research, the court's shift to a harms approach should logically include all presentations containing harmful messages, regardless of the degree of sexual explicitness. As such, this article argues that the court has not really abandoned its moral approach to obscenity. It has just disguised it by adopting the rhetoric of harmfulness.     

"法律事实"概念的法哲学思考

本文从法哲学的角度对法律事实这一概念进行了分析 ,认为法律事实是客观事实的一种 ,并不是有些人所说的“经验事实”或“主观事实” ,也不是“法律证据”、“法的事实”、“事实上的法” ;法律事实与其它客观事实的区别只在于它对法律有意义 ,对于法律工作者来说具有历史性、间接性 ;法律事实是由事物、事物的运动及其结果构成的 ,可分为物的方面和人的方面 ,而人的方面又分为外部行为和内心活动两方面。对法律事实的认识是通过对证据的认识进行的 ,而这一认识是很复杂的 ,不同历史时期 ,人们把对证据的普遍性认识固定在法律中 ,因而形成历史上特定的证据制度。人们对法律事实的认识与法律事实本身的一致是相对的 ,也就是说 ,其真实性是相对的 ,从程度上来说可以分为两种 ,即形式真实和实质真实。人对法律事实的认识的相对性和差异性决定了司法工作中“以事实为根据”的事实只可能是客观事实或法律事实本身 ,而不能是法律工作者内心对事实的认识或一般所说的“经验事实”、“主观事实”。     

康德的自由理论评析

康德的自由理论,是贯穿康德的三大批判的主线之一,同时也是康德的哲学理论中最难以理解、最难以阐释的部分。如果对康德的自由理论做学理式研究,人们会发现康德的自由概念变化多多,甚至自相矛盾。对康德自由概念的理解更是歧义丛生,莫衷一是。著名的康德研究者亨利·阿利森为论     

Provisional concepts and definitions of fact

The paper explains and differentiates the concept of ‘fact’ in the legal setting. Fact and evidence, fact/falsity distinguished; fact and law considered -- a real difference or a pragmatic device? Questions of fact and degree considered, in themselves and in the context of jury trial and of appeals. Primary fact, factual inferences from primary fact, questions of classification of fact are considered. Whether inference is supported by evidence, and whether classification is correct may be questions of law. Issues of fact and opinion, fact and comment, relative to freedom of speech, defamation etc: no clear distinction available. Legal problems concerning absence of workable distinctions.

     

The age of reason: An examination of psychosocial factors involved in delinquent behaviour

Purpose. Delinquent behaviour among children and adolescents is escalating at a considerable rate. This has led to calls to lower the Age of Criminal Responsibility (ACR); however there is limited research on which to base such a decision. The present study addressed this omission by (1) assessing whether or not children can accurately distinguish right from wrong in relation to ‘real‐life’ transgressions and (2) investigating psychosocial factors that may constrain children from acting in accordance with their knowledge of what is right and wrong. Methods. A total of 452 students were recruited from five schools in Sydney, Australia. Forty percent of participants were younger children recruited from Year 5 classes in primary school (mean age of 10.49), and 60% were older children from Year 8 classes in high school (mean age of 14.29). All students completed a questionnaire measuring their understanding of right and wrong, their level of moral disengagement and delinquent behaviour, and their perceived self‐efficacy relating to academic achievement, empathy, and resistance to peer pressure. Results. The majority of children in both age groups demonstrated knowing the difference between right and wrong in relation to ‘real‐life’ transgressions. Further analyses using structural equation modelling (analysis of moment structures, AMOS) revealed that children who engaged in delinquent behaviour were unable to exercise this knowledge appropriately to regulate their behaviour. They were less able to resist peer pressure for transgressive conduct, had low levels of empathic and academic self‐efficacies, and disengaged from moral standards. Conclusions. Implications for policy change and future research directions are proposed.     

从一起“取缔”强制措施未能实施的案件谈起

总结忽视执法文书的使用导致取缔案未能实施的教训,提出应对取缔案件的性质加以区分,分别采取收缴性强制措施和扣押性行政处罚的建议;完善强制(取缔)措施的法律程序,设定相应的执法文书,使取缔更具操作性,实现法律效力,彰显法律尊严。