Consolations of the Law: Jurisprudence and the Constitution of Deliberative Politics

Initially, deliberative politics offers a failure of self-identity in that the literature dealing with it divides between its determinate elevation in terms of reason, and such, and its dissipation in response to the diversity of interests pressing on it. Next, drawing on the resources of poststructural jurisprudence and by way of locating law at a defining limit of deliberative politics, a similar divide is found in law itself. Then, more productively, law is shown to be constituted with-in that divide and to take characteristic content from it. Finally, the analysis is returned to deliberative politics where the divide found in the literature can now be seen as offering this politics possibilities of effective constitution and distinctive content.     

The Boycott of the Law and the Law of the Boycott: Law, Labour, and Politics in British Columbia

This article uses a critical theoryllegal mobilization perspective to study the 1987–92 trade union boycott of the British Columbia labour law. The problems encountered establishing a total boycott–one that would eschew all contact with the state–and the subsequent modification of the parameters of the boycott through a selective reliance on the law offer an important case from which to learn more about the role of law and legal rights in highly regulated organizations and how collectives mobilize the law. The author argues that legal rights are important to unions because of their ability to mediate the complexity of labour relations through a decentralization of authority. At the same time, mobilization of the law for this purpose accentuates localized identities and unequal resources that operate in tension with a boycott ethos, necessitating a deliberative politics to legitimize the law. By exploring the tension between these two forms of mobilization around law–one to reduce complexity, another to legitimize broad collective norms–the author analyzes and draws some conclusions about the reproduction of social unionism in British Columbia.     

Reflective Judgement and Prudential Rationality: A Contribution to an Inclusive Practical Application of Law

Hannah Arendt has developed a theory of the importance of judgment of taste for political manners, founded on the Kantian aesthetic theory. Nowadays this theory is considered a current theoretical reference for establishing a political way to reconcile the demands of the radicalization of deliberative democracy with the need for political inclusion (Iris Marion Young, Seyla Benhabib). Albena Azmanova in her The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment proposes an inclusive political rhetoric. The political theory founded on judgment is based on Kant’s philosophy; it was developed by Arendt and has greatly influenced the current debate, as an alternative theory in which the moral basis of law can be more sensitive to human contexts; a universalist theory more adequate for dealing with the tragic dimension of human life. The theory of political judgment uses the concepts of reflective judgment and ‘enlarged thought’ as its main concepts. As a starting point, a theory like this considers the singular judgments of justice that each person makes. The background, therefore, is not a rational foundation of principles, but the capacity of rational beings to make judgments. This post-metaphysical theory of law, based on a theory of judgment, is a critique of legal positivism, but presents itself as an alternative to the idealistic theory of law. But this theoretical project has received some criticism related to the adequacy of Arendt’s rereading of Kantian philosophy and her attempt to approximate Kant’s reflective judgment to the Aristotelian concept of phronêsis. Some critics, such as Bryan Garsten, believe that Kant’s rhetoric of public reason diminished and displaced the prudential faculty of judgment that Arendt is to be interested in reviving. Arendt’s attempt to find a theory of judgment in Kant’s aesthetic theory is not successful, in Garsten’s view. Our purpose is to show that a critical theory of judicial judgment is not only possible, but necessary; Arendt’s theory of judgment offers an important contribution to a critical theory of judicial judgment, particularly one devoted to the construction of a legal theory that prioritizes a politics of social inclusion. This theory proposes a critical approach to the project of the procedural conception of democracy, since it can mask social exclusion. An adequate understanding of judicial argumentation cannot forget that it happens in a rhetorical context: it is not only important what a discourse says, but how it says it. The radicalization of deliberative democracy supposes a revision of the ways judicial deliberation is thought: not by reference to universal or at least general principles, but taking into consideration what is ‘critically relevant’, with a view to remedying social injustice (following Azmanova).

     

Risk Regulation and Deliberation in EU Administrative Governance—GMO Regulation and Its Reform

The article analyses the problems of EU risk regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the lens of deliberative theories of EU law and governance, such as deliberative supranationalism and experimentalist governance. Previous research had suggested that the GMO issue is not conductive to deliberation within EU institutions because of its high politicisation. This article argues that another equally salient factor is the scientification of the GMO authorisation process. Scientification stands for the Commission's overreliance on epistemic legitimacy as the basis for risk management. Given the deadlock of comitology in this field, scientification is exacerbated by a reversion to top‐down regulation by the Commission. As a result, political responsibility for GMO authorisations gets lost. This article argues that both scientification and politicisation are mutually accelerative processes ultimately leading to a break down of dialogue at the EU level. This contradicts the assumption that deliberation is fostered by technocratic ‘behind closed door’ decision‐making. In the GMO case, the top‐down imposition of epistemic authority has only increased politicisation contributing to the de‐legitimation of all EU institutions involved in GMO regulation. The recent EU reform on national opt‐outs is not sufficient to address this problem. A successful reform should mitigate the negative effects of both politicisation and scientification.     

The Idea of Deliberative Democracy. A Critical Appraisal

The deliberative conception of politics seems to be necessary for the legitimation of state power through democratic will-formation and decision-making. However, the author maintains that a complex theory of democracy cannot merely consist in procedural prerequisites for organizing the concomitant institutional settings. In particular, such a theory must comprise some substantive presuppositions, such as social and economic rights, in order to diminish existing material inequalities, especially those connected with social exploitation and domination. The author argues that a contemporary theory of democracy should reflect on the autonomization of mechanisms of egoistic action challenging not only the democratic political order, but also the very reproduction preconditions of societies all over the world. In this perspective, the model of associative democracy, which is suggested nowadays as a sort of substantive correlative to the institutional proceduralism, could not significantly rejuvenate the traditional representative democracy. Instead, democracy could only be given a fresh impulse if democratic deliberation penetrates the currently forbidden field of capitalist production and social exploitation, the locus where social inequality and effective unfreedom are endlessly reproduced.     

宪法：从政治法到治政法

将宪法称为政治法,虽然由来久、流传广,但弊病多、危害深,不宜继续提倡。政治事务虽然由宪法集中规范,但宪法不只是规范政治事务。单纯从宪法与政治的关系上讲,宪法不是政治统治法、被政治控制之法,而是控制政治之法、治理政权之法。人民是政治与治政的主体,宪法是人民治政的依据与准则。将宪法作为治政法,体现了民主与民治的要求,有利于增强宪法的法律属性与价值理性,有利于实现宪治、实现民主、实现自由。     

Law and Social Protests

This paper deals with the relationship between law and social protests, a topic that seems particularly relevant at this time, when recent public events show the existence of growing tension between citizens and public officers. The paper does not explore the ultimate causes that triggered these social protests, but rather the normative and legal questions raised by these conflicts. The main question that it addresses is the following: How should the law act in the face of these growing expressions of social discontent? The main point that it defends is that social protests are political expressions that, as such, deserve a special public (and particularly judicial) protection. The argument is particularly directed at studying the legal consequences of taking the expressive components of social protests seriously. The exploration may have a further theoretical interest for those who are interested in reflecting upon the scope and limits of the theory of deliberative democracy.     

Law and American Political Development

This essay reviews the recent volume edited by Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (2006), as well as the broader literature by law scholars interested in American Political Development (APD). The Law and APD literature has advanced our knowledge about courts by placing attention on the importance of executive and legislative actors, and by providing political context to our understanding of judicial decision making. But this knowledge would be more powerful if it would embrace the broader APD field's orientation toward the importance of state and institutional autonomy for understanding politics and political change. Law and APD scholars could go further in examining the ways in which courts and judges act institutionally, and how the legal branch as an institution impacts American politics and state-building. In doing so, Law and APD scholars would contribute not only to our understanding of judicial decision making but also to our understanding of the place and importance of courts in American politics.     

Law and Speed: Asylum Appeals and the Techniques and Consequences of Legal Quickening

This article examines how a politics of speed is manifest in a legal context via a detailed ethnography of the French National Court of Asylum (CNDA). It identifies the temporal, spatial, and organizational ordering techniques that characterize asylum appeals in France and discusses the consequences of these techniques for the way in which the appeal process is experienced by legal decision makers and subjects. It reveals adverse impacts of legal quickening on legal quality, in particular through identifying: ‘cracks’ in the performance of legal roles like lawyer and judge that begin to appear when law is executed rapidly and repetitively; dwindling opportunities to demonstrate and experience respect between parties; and the ‘thinning-out’ of legal process, as heuristics rather than deliberation come to dominate legal reasoning. The article contributes to a burgeoning body of socio-legal literature on law and time by establishing the negative impact of excessive legal quickening on role performance, respect, and legal quality.     

Pathologies of Deliberation in the EU

The article explores the ‘dark side’ of deliberation with regard to the EU. In contrast to the dominant apologetics of deliberation, it argues that even though deliberation might have benevolent effects on decision making in the EU, the convention method cannot be viewed as a democratic alternative to the intergovernmental conferences. This is due to the pathologies of deliberation that can only be corrected by applying additional mechanisms. The article explores the pathologies of deliberation by referring to recent experience with the convention method applied within the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights (1999/2000) and the Convention on the Future of the European Union (2002/2003). It discusses two types of deliberative pathologies including the false will‐formation and the rational hijacking of deliberation which question the validity of democratic claims made by deliberation theory.     

A Socio-Axiological Concept of Law

The author starts with the assumption that present-day Western society is complex, pluralistic and conflictual in nature. Because of these qualities of society, law appears as an ineluctable means for the regulation of societal relationships. Law does not express an amorphous common good, nor is it simply an instrument of power. Law turns the socio-ethical and political conception that discursively prevails in the competition among the diverging conceptions of dynamic social groups into generally binding standards of conduct. In the socio-axiological concept of law presented here, law exhibits the conflicting character of the open, pluralistic society and brings about understanding for democracy and discursive-deliberative politics. These are favourable presuppositions for the acceptability of law.     

寻求不一致的一致——试论软法与协商民主机制的结构性耦合

卢曼认为,法律是一个使用合法/不合法的独特符号作为沟通手段的独立的规则系统,是人类行为的规范性预期的制度化。法律规范作为独立系统欲保持稳定与再生则必须在封闭运行的同时与外部环境之间保持认知的开放,其对外部环境刺激的稳定回应模式即为结构性耦合。从此视角观察,软法是一个相对而言制度化程度较低的,其稳定预期的功能相对弱化了的规则系统,它允许中间程度的效力,其创生本身具有回应性目的。软法建构的环境在国际关系和国内民主政治领域的表现形式就是协商民主。协商民主政治机制本身的出现就具有回应民主程度问题的性质,其成功的几个关键机制需要弹性的规范体系。软法能够模式化地回应协商民主的需要而与之形成结构性耦合。     

Beyond Consensus: Law, Disagreement and Democracy

Nowadays democratic liberal societies face a rising challenge in terms of fragmentation and erosion of shared values and ethical pluralism. Democracy is not anymore grounded in the possibility of a common understanding and interpretation of the same values. Neverthless, legal and political philosophy continue to focus on how to reach consensus, especially through monist, objectualist, contractualist, discursive and deliberative approaches, rather than openly affording the issue of disagreement. Far from being just a disruptive force, disagreement and conflict are matters of fact that no reflection on democracy can underevaluate. They are the major issues through which to look at the intersection of law, politics and morals. The inclusion of dissent is a powerful tool for moral recognition of different understandings of justice. That is where legal procedures become crucial. Law is a fundamental element in the building of a democracy. But it is also particularly exposed to disagreement. Language indeterminacy, dogmatic concepts and value pluralism constitute the main elements that lead to alternative and conflicting interpretations of law in a democratic framework. Major legal progress in the past has come from different understandings of the same legal materials. In this article I argue that respect for disagreement should be a moral principle in democracy and that the role of legal disagreement is essential to understand the evolution and the future directions of democracy as the government of a political community. To do so, a link between respect for disagreement and legal interpretation and argumentation must be established in order to make room for reason and avoid extreme skepticism on the contribution of law to the enforcement of democracy.     

我国政法教育的变迁与展望

政法教育形成于1950年代,基于巩固新生政权的需要,它为政法工作培养专门干部。与政法工作强调政治性一样,政法教育是强调政治性的法学教育,非常重视党的政治路线和组织纪律教育。改革开放后,法学教育日趋强调专业化、职业化。20世纪80年代,仍继续强调政治性。这与当时的社会治安形势及“严打”刑事政策有一定关系。1990年代以后,政治性在政法教育中日渐淡出,法学教育趋向服务市场经济的专业化。新时代的治国理政,在法治领域创造了一系列新实践,法治思维和法治方式运用深入政治领域,国家和社会治理广泛纳入全面依法治国范畴,涉外法治深度关联国际政治、国际关系。这些实践造就了强调政治性的大法治工作格局,对法学教育提出了新要求,催生了新政法教育。党内法规学、纪检监察学、国家安全学、社会治理法学等新学科应运而生,人权法学、知识产权法学等学科应需更新。新政法教育与专业化法学教育并行,扩展了法学教育的领地。     

从威权型法到自由民主型法——法治发展的全球趋势

法治社会的生成是一个不断削弱政治专权、捍卫个体尊严的过程。威权型法作为政治权力的孳息物 ,具有人格贬损、话语霸权、政法合一、严刑峻法等特征 ,从而使人不成其为人 ,使法不成其为法。从威权型法转向自由民主型法是全球化时代的法治发展趋势。自由民主型法的价值取向是权利至上 ;制度支撑是宪政体制 ,具体内容包括人民主权、权力分割、违宪审查、司法独立和政党守法等内容。     

Human Rights and Popular Sovereignty: The Liberal and Republican Versions*

Abstract
Popular sovereignty and human rights are the modern pillars of legal legitimacy and political power. Liberal and republican thought, however, tend to interpret the two notions from different perspectives: either as moral principles, emphasizing the self-legislation and autonomy of individuals, or as ethical values, stressing the self-realization of the political community. Adhering to his theory of communicative action, the author brings the two principles together in a non-competitive relation. Here the connection between popular sovereignty and human rights is given by the procedures of a discursive process of opinion- and will-formation. Theoretically, the institutionalization of this process through law leads to a normative model of contemporary democracy, which is based on the substance of human rights as a formal condition for deliberative politics.**     

论国际法的政治基础

国际法与国际政治之间存在一种相互强化和相互渗透的关系。一方面,自国际法产生以来,国际法的发展时常受到国际政治的制约;另一方面,国际法一经确立就对国际政治关系产生重要影响。在未来的国际体系中,国际法将逐步摆脱强权政治的束缚,作用也会更加突出。     

Deliberative Democracy and Liberal Rights

Many liberals cannot help distrusting deliberative democracy theory. In their view, the theory offers no sufficient guarantee that the outcomes of democratic deliberation will be respectful of individual interests generating what they conceive as basic moral rights. The purpose of this text is to provide one argument showing that liberal rights are sufficiently protected within deliberative democracy theory. The argument does not rest on the idea of moral rights or material justice. It rests on the conditions of legitimate law deliberative democracy theory presupposes, namely, the conditions that make concrete the idea of legitimacy as "actual public justification."     

刑法概念的法哲学问题

刑法的概念既重要又危险,而如何使其科学化却是被忽视了的法哲学问题。从刑法与道德和政治的关系出发,能够为重新理解刑法的概念开辟新路径。任何时代的刑法都是自己时代的公共道德与政治权力相互结合的产物,只不过由于政治权力的性质不同,这种结合方式亦会不同。现代刑法应具有对公共道德与公共政治进行双向控制的功能,而刑法生活是刑法道德基因所存在、表现的基本场域,回到刑法生活才是尊重和确证刑法之道德基因的基本途径。     

Reconfiguring the Politics–Law Relationship in the Integration Project through Conflicts–Law Constitutionalism

This paper argues that the relationship between law and politics must be reconfigured within the European Union. Dissecting recent crises in economic, social and political organisation within Europe with reference to the three ‘fictitious’ commodities of Karl Polanyi, we find that law in Europe has contributed to de‐legalisation, de‐socialisation and disenfranchisement. Moving on to review the potential for law to respond to crisis through new paradigms of conflict resolution as suggested by Ralf Dahrendorf, we find that the steering capacity of law is nevertheless limited if it fails to establish a sustaining relationship with politics. Our conclusions are modest: conflict–law constitutionalism cannot solve Europe's many crises. However, it does represent a new paradigm of law within which relations between European law and European politics might be re‐established—a vital step to overcoming crisis.