法治进路中的反法治现象——以法学学者不要轻易对法官"指手画脚"为视角的分析

"什么是你的贡献"是每位法学学者在探索法治进路中都有必要扪心自问的问题。显然法学学者的贡献并不在于逆程序正义而对当案的法官就该案进行"评头论足",因为这种程序不当的行为不是在创造与推进法治,相反,是通过传统的人际关系说来扼杀正义与创造社会不公。法治进路中,尽管时下法官素质不高是不争的事实,但是作为学者应给予法官应有的宽容、尊重与信任。     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

法官造法:司法过程的最高境界

法官造法是英美法系司法的最高境界,是与大陆法系区别开来的基本特征.美国联邦最高法院大法官卡多佐所撰<司法过程的性质>--作为美国司法哲学的代表之作,对法官造法的动因、界限、根据和方法等做出了简明而又不乏深邃的阐释,该书也成为解读英美法系法官造法理论精髓的窗口.     

家产制与中国家庭法律的社会适应——一种“实践的法律社会学”分析

家产制作为一种习惯法,与中国的家庭法律及其社会适应性存在着密切关联。对家产制和家庭法律的研究应该采取实践的法律社会学态度,通过经验研究来充分展示转型社会对家庭本身的内在需求,从而在法律制度上对这种社会需求给于正确的回应。考察分家模式的历史变迁,可以发现家产制是处理中国家庭财产分配的根本制度选择。在产权结构上,家产制具有客体上的公有性、主体上的多元性以及主体作用于客体的身份性等三大特征,从而区别于西方所有权制度。这种特殊的家产制度是中国转型社会的内在需求,因为中国农村的城市化是一个长期的过程,而在这个过程中家产制有利于维护家庭的稳定从而有助于城市化的顺利进行;另外一方面,家产制有利于补充国家养老能力的不足从而确保城市家庭的稳定和再生产,提升国家的整体竞争力。然而家庭法律却日益朝着去家产制和私权化的方向发展,从而丧失社会适应性,不利于家庭和社会的稳定。因此,中国的家庭立法应该回归新的家产制,并以其为中心确立起发展型家庭法律体系。     

FAMILY LAW EDUCATION REFORM PROJECT: A FACULTY PERSPECTIVE

The Family Law Education Reform Project Report calls for shifting the family law teaching paradigm from a focus on case‐based analysis toward a problem‐solving, interdisciplinary approach. This essay encourages law professors to take seriously this shifting teaching and learning paradigm. Aligning family law curriculum with the realities of practicing family law is a critical step in this process. This essay discusses the numerous intellectual challenges family law professors will face as they reflect on the proposed FLER Project curriculum.     

Hidden Law‐Making in the Province of Medical Jurisprudence

Judges articulate their role in controversial cases of medical ethics in terms of deference to Parliament, lest their personal morality be improperly brought to bear. This hides a wide range of law‐making activities, as parliamentary sovereignty is diffused by ‘intermediate law‐makers’, and judicial activity is more subtle than the deference account implies. The nature of litigation raises questions about the contributions of other legal personnel and also the nature of the parties' interests in test‐cases. While judges demonstrate an awareness of some of these issues and anxiety about the constitutional legitimacy of their work, a more nuanced account is needed of their proper role. This may be built on Austin's theory of tacit legislation. It may draw from human rights law. However, considerable work is required before the complexities of hidden law‐making can be properly incorporated into the province of medical jurisprudence.     

论虚假诉讼的刑法规制——基于对虚假诉讼发生与司法实践状况的实证研究

近年来,虚假诉讼案件在我国频繁发生且呈现出逐年增多的趋势,但我国刑事立法中缺乏恰当的罪名对虚假诉讼行为进行定罪,无法对其进行全面评价。虽然各地出台了大量司法性文件以识别和预防虚假诉讼,但这些司法性文件并无法改变刑法存在漏洞的事实,相反,其对虚假诉讼的罪名设定存在争议,部分规定甚至存在侵犯当事人诉讼权利的嫌疑。因此,通过确立虚假诉讼罪来规制虚假诉讼至关重要。     

法定法官原则：我国管辖制度改革的新视角

我国司法实践中,常出现通过改变案件审理者而影响审判结果的现象,这与我国缺乏法定法官原则有关。法定法官原则要求法院按照预先设定的标准确定案件的管辖法院和审判法官,而不能在纠纷诉诸法院后自由裁量。我国管辖权制度改革也应当贯彻此原则,规范管辖权转移、明确级别管辖标准、禁止随意分配案件的审判法官。     

ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT ATTACHMENT?

Everett Waters is involved in a wide range of longitudinal research projects and educational programs that advance the Bowlby‐Ainsworth tradition of attachment study. His empirical and theoretical knowledge is far reaching. Here, Waters explores the family law field's hopes and expectations of attachment theory, identifies a number of myths about attachment theory that may influence divorce decision making, and challenges why we ask the questions we do. His views encourage hardened supporters and detractors of attachment theory alike to identify a middle ground where the essence of attachment knowledge might best inform family law practices in divorce and separation matters.     

试论在刑事审判中以“参照”方式适用法律

在现行刑法概括性、抽象性的条款较多和法律解释不够系统完善、且滞后的状况下,以"参照"方式适用法律显得十分必要;其目的符合刑法基本原则和量刑一般原则,其本质是法官自由裁量权的具体运用;但需要加以合理规范。     

“Juvenile Drug Courts and Recidivism: Results from a Multisite Outcome Study”

This study reports findings from a study of nine juvenile drug courts (JDCs) from across the US. A quasi-experimental design, with one-to-one matching on possible confounders and sociodemographics, was used for the outcome assessment (n?=?1372). Baseline and outcome data were drawn from justice system records. Although there is variation across sites and, to some extent, outcomes, these JDCs were generally ineffective in reducing recidivism. Similar findings have emerged in other recent studies of JDCs. Given the results of this study and others, it is essential that juvenile courts work to improve the effectiveness of JDCs by increasing adherence to known principles of effective intervention.     

The Limitations to Workers Accessing Eu Rights: Awareness, Advice and Enforcement

This article investigates the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (EU). This examination considers how the EU has provided greater protective employment rights for workers, through provisions in the Treaty and various Directives, than had been achieved through the UK’s own legislative programme. However, these rights are often inaccessible due to governmental intransigence and a lack of awareness by workers of many employment rights. An empirical study was conducted from the perspective of workers and their not-for-profit advisers to consider the consequences of these barriers and to offer potential solutions to the problems.Dr. James Marson is Senior Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Development and Society, Sheffield Hallam University, City Campus, Howard St., Sheffield S1 1WB, UK.