Justification Under Uncertainty

There is a controversy as to the moral status of an action in the face of uncertainty concerning a non-moral fact that is morally significant (according to an applicable moral standard): According to the objective conception, the right action is determined in light of the truth, namely the actual state of affairs (regarding the pertinent fact), whereas according to the subjective conception, the right action depends on the epistemic state of the agent, namely her (justified) belief (concerning the pertinent fact). A similar debate concerns the law, with respect to uncertainty regarding a legally significant fact. In this paper, I argue that moral and legal normative concepts are ambiguous and include two aspects: The ideal aspect, which is concerned with the constitutive feature of the normative standard, and the pragmatic aspect, which determines the correct action under uncertainty. With regard to each aspect, a different conception is appropriate: The objective conception should govern the ideal aspect and the subjective conception the pragmatic aspect. And the relevant aspect (and therefore the appropriate conception) depends on the question under consideration regarding the pertinent normative standard: what is its constitutive feature or whether an action is right (according to the applicable normative standard) in the face of uncertainty.     

论司法判决的不确定性

一般认为,司法判决是确定的,每个案件都存在着“唯一正确的答案”,这是一个常识性的错误。事实上,在判决的形成过程中,有多种不确定性因素在发挥着作用,因而,判决往往是不确定的。判决的不确定性主要来源于以下四个方面：即法律适用的不确定性、事实认定的不确定性,司法人员个性的不确定性和其他社会因素的不确定性。     

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd and Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: A Material Contribution to Uncertainty?

In the conjoined cases of Sienkiewicz and Willmore, the Supreme Court decided that the exceptional Fairchild approach to the proof of causation in negligence applied where a mesothelioma victim had been negligently exposed to asbestos by one defendant at a level well below unavoidable environmental asbestos exposure. The negligent exposures in both cases materially increased the risk of mesothelioma thereby satisfying the Fairchild test. Whilst reasserting the primacy of the common law as governing the rules of causation in mesothelioma cases, the Supreme Court failed to clarify the scope of the Fairchild exception. Moreover, in an extensive obiter discussion of epidemiological evidence, the Supreme Court has raised more questions than it has answered relating to the role, if any, of scientific evidence in the law of toxic torts.     

Uncertainty in Clinical Research

"It is a fact of life that human beings find it difficult to maintain a consistent, self-conscious appreciation of the extent to which uncertainty accompanies them on their daily rounds and to integrate that uncertainty with whatever certainties inform their conduct. Physicians are not exempt from this human proclivity." Jay Katz¹     

Scientific Uncertainty and Science-Based Precaution

The debate between advocates of the "Precautionary Principle" and those of "science-based regulation" hinges in large part on the standard of proof to be applied to the scientific evidence that a given action poses a danger of serious and irreversible environmental harm. We propose an intermediate approach, which we term "science-based precaution," intended to facilitate adaptive management of environmental issues – that is, learning through experience and experimentation.We propose that evidence justifying precautionary action must be sufficient to create a "reasonable belief" of serious and irreversible environmental danger. In other cases, in which the proponents of an action bear the burden of proof that the actions they propose will not cause environmental harm, we propose that they must make a "clear showing"to that effect. Both of these standards of proof are derived from a scale constructed from the standards of proof used in various branches of US law.The "reasonableness" standard of proof for the application of the Precautionary Principle is more cautious than the record of international efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and to deal with climate change. It is analogous to the standard of proof imposed by US administrative law, and is also consistent with the position of the European Union and the holdings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the beef hormones case. We further propose a Reasonableness Principle: that scientific research and technological innovations promising major benefits not be unreasonably blocked before their full implications are understood.     

论法律的确定性与不确定性

崇尚法律的确定性,是西方法学界一个悠久的学术传统。20世纪以来,西方法学界关于这一问题的立场发生了根本转变,转而强调法律的不确定性。在法律运行的过程中,存在着多种不确定性因素,包括法律标准的不确定性、事实认定的不确定性、司法人员个性的不确定性和其他社会因素的不确定性等四个方面。无论是法律的确定性,还是法律的不确定性,都是相对的,而且,二者都蕴藏着一定的社会价值。     

Uncertainty and the Prevalence of Committee Outliers

Political scientists often suppose that the informational model of legislative organization predicts an absence of committee outliers. In fact, the model predicts that committee outliers will be more common when the floor is more uncertain than its committees. Data limitations have largely prevented testing this uncertainty‐outlier prediction, until now. For this article, I investigated whether or not the informational model correctly predicts under what scenarios outliers will be more frequent. As predicted, more uncertainty is associated with more committee outliers in U.S. state legislatures. Legislatures in which the floor is less informed than the committees are more likely to have committee outliers.     

论反倾销法的不确定性--以反倾销实体法为视点

法律概念与法律原则的确定性是法律应有的属性,法律的确定性也是法律发展的目标.但是,作为维护公平竞争秩序和保护国内产业的反倾销法,却由于其自身的性质和规律,以及国家的经济政策、产业正常、经济形势等各因素的影响,表现出了大量的不确定性.然而,从客观上分析,法律的确定性与不确定性是并存的,尽管确定性是反倾销法追求的目标,但其不确定性也有自身的合理性与必要性.     

Uncertainty of calculation results in vehicle collision analysis

In the analysis of road accidents two types of calculation result uncertainty can be distinguished: modelling uncertainty and uncertainty in calculation results [R.M. Brach, M. Brach, Vehicle Accident Analysis & Reconstruction Methods, SAE International Publisher, Warrendale, 2005]. The problem becomes very important first of all when minor modifications of input parameters or application of different models of the phenomenon lead to a fundamentally different answer to the question posed by the court. The aim of the paper was to prove the necessity of including the problem of uncertainty in calculations related to vehicle collision mechanics and to justify the application of different error analysis methods recommendable in vehicle collision reconstruction. The data file from crash test No. 7 [H. Burg, M. Lindenmann, Unfallversuche, Verlag Information Ambs, Kippenheim, 1982] was used, the selection restricted to the range typical of average police records of collision place. Collision speeds were calculated using two methods: reconstruction and simulation. The analysis of uncertainty was carried out. Maximum and mean square uncertainty were calculated by means of total differential of relevant forms. Since the reconstruction resulted in very broad error intervals of uniform distribution, additional calculations were performed by the Monte Carlo method using algorithm described in [W. Wach, J. Unarski, Determination of vehicle velocities and collision location by means of Monte Carlo simulation method, Special Publication Accident Reconstruction SP-1999, SAE Paper No. 2006-01-0907, 2006].     

行政法上的不确定法律概念

行政法学通说基于传统的价值导向思考,主张行政机关对不确定法律概念的解释适用应受全面的司法审查,例外时才享有"判断余地";且"判断余地"与行政裁量有质的区别。这一观点虽然价值正确但融贯性不足,且不符合法律实践规律。法理学汲取语言哲学、道德分析哲学的营养所展开的研究表明,价值导向思考所立足的唯一正确答案预设是一个不能证成的本体论虚构。不确定法律概念的不确定性出现且仅出现于语言规则的尽头(临界案件);在语言规则的尽头,行政机关应在法律框架内追加价值判断(履行个别情况考虑义务),来决定是否将该概念适用于个案事实。不确定法律概念与行政裁量的二元论和一元论都包含着部分真理,而在整体上以偏概全。     

行政裁决诉讼的不确定性及其解决

行政裁决系指行政主体依照法律法规授权,以中间人的身份,按照一定的程序,对与行政管理相关的,发生在平等主体之间的民事纠纷进行裁决的行为。行政裁决行为归属具体行政行为的普遍性与区别具体行政行为的特殊性,带来了从行政裁决的对象上考察案件性质和从行政裁决行为性质本身考察案件性质的不确定性,进而造成了行政裁决司法救济途径的多样性。行政裁决的三种司法救济途径各有利弊,并且都面临理论与实践、法律规定与审判效果的冲突。这些冲突造成了行政裁决理论研究的困惑和司法实践的不统一;因此,应该创设一种新的诉讼形式来解决行政裁决司法救济中的问题。     

试析巨额财产来源不明罪

巨额财产来源不明罪自其创设起就是一个颇有争议的罪名 ,通过分析该罪的构成要件 ,认为“司法机关无法查清巨额财产的真实来源”不是本罪客观要件的内容。分析了本罪在现实中出现的尴尬境况 ,认为前置制度的缺乏是导致其尴尬境况的深层次原因 ,并对本罪的完善提出了建议     

Survey of American (USA) Gasolines (2008)

The regulations for gasoline's content vary depending on the time of year and physical location within the United States while the refinery and distribution system mixes product batches; this results in variability of content. ASTM E1618 requires both the aromatic and alkane EIP patterns of gasoline to compare with references. A survey was conducted by collecting gasoline from Florida to Oregon, from 85 to 93 octane. Samples were analyzed in accordance with ASTM E1618 in various states of evaporation. The range of differences found in the 90% evaporated alkane EIPs is presented and showed a continuum of response when the n-alkane response was compared with the branched alkane response. Similarly, the ratio of the alkane EIP to the aromatic EIP also showed a continuum of response at the 90% evaporated state. Gasoline samples with unusual characteristics are also discussed.     

法律不确定性引出的冲突与补救

法律具有不确定性，决定了法律只能形而上地追求形式正义①，而法律的终极目标是实现实质正义。从形式正义到实质正义的实现有待于法官自由裁量权的介入，完成静态规则到动态事实的转变。中国的具体国情和法官素质决定了我国尚不能大量运用法官自由裁量权。因此，我国现阶段应主要借助于法律涵量较小的司法解释作为法官裁判的依据，以实现法律的实质正义目标。     

Legal Entrepreneurship and the Strategic Virtues of Legal Uncertainty

The field of law and strategy (LAS) has advanced our understanding of the law's role in competitive advantage. To date, however, LAS has neglected low rule of law environments—countries characterized by expansive degrees of legal uncertainty. LAS should account for these settings, too, since environmental uncertainty is a strategically significant factor for any company. This article situates the strategic relevance of legal uncertainty in the Chinese context and fills an important gap by illustrating how LAS principles apply in low rule of law jurisdictions. Specifically, this article develops the construct of legal entrepreneurship—the notion that attorneys may apply an entrepreneurial mind-set and skill set to position the client favorably and legitimately within the uncertainties of the legal landscape, thereby creating legal competitive advantages for the client. Drawing upon interviews with expert attorneys and executives, this article presents a typology of legal strategies available to U.S. companies in China, uniquely modeling these approaches along the two fundamental dimensions of legal strategy. Additionally, this article identifies two basic types of legal uncertainty in the cross-border context and offers guidelines for the exercise of legal entrepreneurship. Together, these arguments demonstrate that legal entrepreneurship is an empirically viable construct within the LAS project. In low rule of law jurisdictions that have embraced foreign enterprise, legal entrepreneurship will generally optimize the American company's pursuit of both legal value creation and legal risk management.