Judicial Review,Rights, and Democracy

Law and Philosophy -     

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.     

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

Law and Philosophy -     

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.     

Argumentative Representation and Democracy: A Critique of Alexy's Defense of Judicial Review of Legislation

Robert Alexy has argued that the democratic objection to judicial review of legislation can be successfully addressed by assuming that judges exercise a special form of argumentative representation. In this article we argue that Alexy does not explain (as he should) under what circumstances judicial review tends to produce better decisions than parliamentary procedure, nor does he explain how judicial review can have a greater intrinsic value than parliamentary procedure. Subsequently, we argue that the intrinsic value of argumentative representation depends on the promotion of citizen deliberation, whereas its instrumental value depends on judges being committed to the rights of discrete and insular minorities in the face of hostile majorities.     

关于香港法院的司法审查权

一、香港法院是否具有司法审查权? 香港基本法在香港的法律体系中地位最高,具有最高的法律效力.据此,一些学者将香港基本法称之为"小宪法".为了保证香港基本法的这一地位,香港基本法中规定了相应的保障机制,即香港立法会制定的法律在通过以后,须交全国人大常委会备案;全国人大常委会经审查认为该法律违反基本法时,将其发回,该法律自发回之日起无效.     

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。     

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.     

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 -     

Expert Evidence,Judicial Reasoning,and the Family Courts Information Pilot

The Family Courts Information Pilot took a modest step towards open justice in Children Act cases by publishing 161 judgments of the County Courts and Family Proceedings Courts. Combining socio‐legal and philosophical analysis on lines inspired by the work of Habermas, this article examines the epistemology of expert testimony implicit in the judgments. What emerges is a form of reasoning based on ‘inference to the best explanation’: judges seek to show that the best explanation for experts saying what they do is that they have good reasons for their opinions. While this approach is not blindly deferential, it has serious limitations in cases where the only experts are local authority social workers and the guardian, and an awareness of these limitations is one reason for the courts' willingness to allow other experts to be instructed. The article also criticizes the analysis of the courts’ use of experts by the recent Family Justice Review.     

Court Finance and Court Responses to Judicial Reforms: A Tale of Two Chinese Courts

This research studies the responses of two lower-level courts, one in rural and the other in urban China, to recent judicial reforms focusing on strengthening institutional building and professionalism. It finds that the court-funding structure under which the courts heavily rely on the local government for expenses, together with the unbalanced development of local economy, remarkably affects the two courts' behavioral pattern in different ways. The rural court, for the sake of litigation fees, tries to attract potential litigants to file certain lawsuits, even though it cannot effectively handle them. The efforts toward institutional building and professionalism only aggravate the already difficult situation. The urban court's institutional quality seems to have increased in the reform process, thanks to sufficient resources from the developed and diversified local economy. But it has also become more formalized and bureaucratic, as it tries to exclude difficult and problematic disputes from getting into the court. In illustrating the complexity of transitional China's judicial reform process generated by both the unbalanced economic development and the bureaucratization of the judiciary, this article suggests that the enhancement of institutional quality, which many argue is key to economic development, may itself be contingent upon the success of economic development.     

More Norms,Less Justice: Refugees,the Republic,and everyone in between

The paper argues for conflating refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) as two sides of a work-in-progress postcolonial state. To be sure, aliens, refugees, IDPs, and stateless persons are separate legal entities. Nevertheless, this fragmented normative regime stands testimony to more laws and less justice. Many Asian states have no domestic refugee law. India, a common law system, takes a case by case approach as refugees are given “temporary shelter on humanitarian considerations”. Ironically, a work-in-progress postcolonial state sustains even de jure citizens as de facto stateless persons; the erstwhile Indo-Bangla enclaves for more than half a century were an apt example. Surely, the raison d’être of international law on refugees is to end human suffering, if needed, by transcending the absence of positive laws. A constitutional and political desire to minimise human suffering alone could cut the rigour of such positivist legal narratives. The Delhi High Court seemingly walked that path in Koul v Estate Officer noting “refugees and IDPs appear to be similarly situated”. Rising terrorism has made states increasingly believe in a security narrative all the same. A simultaneous emergence of a demographic anxiety particularly in India’s North-eastern states increasingly pits aliens and refugees against the domiciled indigenous and tribal people.     

Designing Judicial Review: A Comment on Schauer

Law and Philosophy -