实践法律观要义——以转型中的中国为出发点

在当今问题时代,对何谓法律的回答,应围绕事实与规范的紧张关系而展开。这一关系表现有二:认识论上的事实与规范的不对称性,伦理上的事实与规范的对立,前者极具普适性,而后者主要为中国特有。以往的法律观,集中于认识论,在事实与规范中偏袒一方,造成两者不可沟通。本文欲提取实践的两大要素,以"践行"应对两者在伦理上的对立,以"反思"解决两者在认识论上的不对称性,形成以"法是实践智慧"为核心命题的打通事实与规范的实践法律观。     

行政法中的法律保留原则研究

法律保留原则是依法行政原则的重要内容,但法律保留原则与长期以来被认为同样是依法行政原则之一的法律优位原则存在显著的差异,法律保留原则更能体现依法行政的本质要求因而构成依法行政的特有原则。法律保留原则自近代产生以来其本身也发生了重大的变化,在"法律"的范围上从议会法发展到既包括议会法也包括行政立法;在保留的事项上从侵害行政发展到包括侵害行政、内部行政、给付行政在内的所有行政;在保留密度上从纯粹的行为法发展到既有行为法也有组织法。构成现代行政重要特征的自由裁量行为同样受发展了的法律保留原则支配。我国现行行政法治实践中法律保留原则逐渐得到重视,但是仍然存在诸多弊端。     

关于法的溯及力问题和法律不溯既往原则的若干新思考

国内法理学界对法的溯及力问题和法律不溯既往原则的研究有所不足,我国应当确立法律不溯既往原则的宪法位阶．因为这一原则具有重要的人权价值。法律不溯既往原则在公法和私法领域都有“例外”,即某些法律在某些情况下是可以溯及既往的,例如在涉及公共利益的情况下。法律之所以可以溯及既往．最重要的是因为其要在公权力和私权利之间保持平衡。既判从旧原则也是法律不溯既往的体现,是对法院裁判的既判力的尊重。程序法不创造新的权利和义务,只是提供法律救济和实现权利（或权力）的方法和途径．因此以溯及既往为原则。2010年中国形成自己特色的社会主义法律体系后,使研究法的溯及力问题更有理论价值和实践意义。可以考虑将法的溯及力问题分别规定在为宪法、立法法、有关部门法和法律解释的四个层次中。     

欧盟“商标权穷竭”法律问题研究

近年来,知识产权的权利穷竭问题已成为世界知识产权界和国际贸易领域中的热门问题之一。对商标权的国际穷竭问题,世界各国有各自不同的态度。欧盟本着以建立共同市场之旨。实行的是“共同体内穷竭原则”．并发展了一系列判例、理论和立法。对国际穷竭原则,欧盟的态度尚不明朗,但其已进入议事日程。国际贸易自由化是大势所趋。国际穷竭原则符合这一潮流。我国应研究这一问题,并建立和完善相关制度。     

The Derivational Theory of Legal Interpretation in Polish Legal Theory

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - The article presents so-called “derivational” theory of legal interpretation and...     

Legal Principles and Legal Theory

Current legal theory is concerned with the presence of principles in law partly because they are at the core of Dworkin's criticisms of Hart's rule of recognition. Hart's theory is threatened by the possibility that the identification of some principles follows an extremely relaxed rule of recognition, or even no rule at all. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive test to ascertain what is the case in actual practice. On the other hand, the evaluative arguments which support Dworkin's proposal of principled adjudication are forceful but not conclusive. Moreover, since ultimate controversy over values is plausible, judicial discretion may sometimes be inevitable.     

对“客观真实观”的几点批判

"客观真实说"尽管确实有一定的合理性,但它仅仅将刑事审判看做一种认识活动,抹杀了诉讼中的认识活动与哲学家、历史学家、自然科学家视野下的认识活动之间的界限,并且将这种以"重构已然事件"为目标的认识活动绝对化,不仅不符合认识的发展规律,也排除了人的主观性以及其他诉讼价值存在的可能性.因而,"客观真实说"的缺陷是极其明显的.相比而言,"法律真实说"能够较为恰当地表述刑事审判所认定事实的准确性程度,符合刑事审判的性质,能合理地解决实体公正价值与程序公正价值之间的冲突.尤其是,"法律真实说"具有可操作性,符合认识发展的规律.     

郑克法律思想初探

郑克的法律思想集中反映在其著作《折狱龟鉴》中。法官的品德与才能、诉讼审判的经验与技巧是其法律思想的两个重要方面。郑克认为 ,法官既要有仁恕矜谨、勇于为义、尽心不苟的品德 ,又要具备明辨深察、博闻广见、妥善处事的才能。而且 ,从诉讼、侦查、审理到判决都有经验可供后人借鉴。     

“需要国家干预说”的法哲学分析

“需要国家干预说”是 20世纪中国经济法学最重要的学说之一。有限理性假设、国家适度干预、经济民主、社会公平、经济法治是其基本的法哲学叙事立场。国家是干预需要的满足者,“需要”是通过干预重建经济自由秩序的法律理由。国家超越市场利益关系对经济进行干预调节,国家干预由此构成经济法的基本哲学范畴与法理标志。经济宪政哲学是国家干预经济的法哲学进路,通过经济民主机制设定的干预才能避免经济专制,国家与社会成员共同分享经济权力才能保障干预的社会性与民主性,干预的达成并非一定为了公共,公共中的个体主义是结成公共的价值指引。     

共同法律行为理论的初步构建——以公司设立为分析对象

共同法律行为相对于契约行为,具有表意人身份相同、意思表示内容相同、意思表示方向相同、意思表示所指向的目标实体相同等特点,这些特点是共同行为理论创立的基础。共同法律行为在成立和生效要件、法律效果、特别是在责任救济方面,有着不同于契约行为的独特之处。共同行为的本质特性是指向特定的目标实体,违反共同法律行为,必然首先损害目标实体的利益,同时也可能直接损害其他行为人的利益,导致双重责任的产生。共同行为理论在对公司法现象的解释力上要明显优越于公司契约理论。     

构建知识产权法“平衡理论”的开创性之作——读冯晓青教授的《知识产权法利益平衡理论=}

近些年来,我国知识产权法律制度的发展和取得的成效为知识产权法的理论研究提供了巨大的舞台。在新的形势下,知识产权法律制度和政策问题的很多方面也特别需要理论支持和推动。例如,当前国际知识产权制度在很大的程度上是由发达国家主导的,发达国家从自身利益出发,高举知识产权保护主义旗帜,对发展中国家不断施加压力。作为发展中国家的重要成员,我国究竟应当怎样对知识产权保护进行定位,如何正确应对复杂的国际环境,需要从理论层面有明确的认识和态度。另一方面,知识产权法作为一门重要的法学学科,理论研究的升华也是该学科发展的必由之路,…     

Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited

This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal reasoning that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them.     

Conceptualizing Security Exceptions: Legal Doctrine or Political Excuse?

The dominant world political theory for international engagementhas long been Realism, where state power and state interestsare viewed as determining the limits on state relations. Increasingly,however, new theories have emerged to assist our understandingof how and why states interact in a global setting dominatedby international institutions and their antecedent agreements.This is no more apparent than in the field of internationaleconomic relations under the control of the World Trade Organization.Using political and legal theories, this essay explores whetherWTO security exceptions are legal doctrines or political excusesand how this informs our present, and possibly future, understandingof international state interaction.     

On Giving Legal Form Its Due. A Study in Legal Theory

Abstract.  The four theses of this paper are: (1) that an appropriate organizational form is used to design, define, and organize a functional unit of a legal system, (2) that the functional units of a legal system, contrary to the emphasis in Hart and Kelsen, consist of far more than rules, and include institutions, interpretive and other methodologies, sanctions and remedies, and more, (3) that frontal and systematic study of the forms of these units is a major avenue for advancing understanding of them as duly organized wholes, and, (4) that such study reveals that much credit is due these forms, along with complementary material or other components of the units, for values realized through law.     

Critical Legal Studies versus Critical Legal Theory: A Comment on Method

Over the last decade the Conference on Critical Legal Studies (CCLS) has rekindled an important debate about the study of legal ideologies. The work by scholars within this movement is provocative because it demands that we take seriously the contradictory needs and ideological parameters of liberal legalism. The growing body of work associated with this movement has not, however, included a criticism of the ideological underpinnings of legal methods in general and doctrinal analysis in particular. We begin with the premise that scholarship must include a self-critical method.
In Part I—The Political-Economic Constraints of Liberal Legal Scholarship—we explore why questions of methods, i. e. of how one asks and answers questions, has not been a central issue within CCLS. In Part II—Reformulation of Method—we present a beginning toward a framework for developing a self-critical method for understanding legal ideologies.