The right to counsel in Iranian criminal justice system

Criminal law deals with very important aspects of the life in the society. The subjects of the crime, health, reputation … are so important that endangering them requires punishment and it is told that the society in order to protect the public order should punish the perpetrators. There is no doubt that the criminals should be punished. The punishment enacted by the legislator should be proportional. The more serious the crime, the more severe the punishment. But, it seems that in the process of criminal trial, the accused has rights too. It means that society has not an absolute authority in accusation and punishment and in addition to the proportionality and justification of punishment the trial should be fair. In other words, it is not possible to speak about justice any more if the criminal is punished proportionally and rightly but not fairly, i.e. without allowing him/her to present his/her case, defend him/herself and obtain legal aid or sufficient information. Iranian criminal law, like other criminal justice systems in respecting the rights of the accused, has provided the right to counsel. This value can be expressed in the concept of the rule of law, recognized in international documents. It seems that the standards of the criminal procedure are mostly determined and developed under the influence of this concept. The current paper considers different aspects of the right to counsel in Iran.     

禁止体罚儿童的国际法律规定与国内法律实施——以家庭内体罚儿童为视角

普遍存在的体罚儿童现象随着国际社会对儿童权利的关注逐渐进入人们的视野,特别是家庭内部的儿童体罚问题也开始受到关注。近年来,禁止一切形式的儿童体罚的观念逐渐被越来越多的国家所接受。探析儿童体罚问题的原因和危害,从国际人权文件和我国国内法律体系中寻找家庭内部禁止体罚儿童的依据,以类型化分析的方法比较世界各国保护儿童的立法例及其进展,借鉴外国禁止体罚的立法实践,针对我国在禁止家庭内体罚儿童中存在的种种问题,提出若干改进方向,以求尽快达到禁止体罚儿童的国际人权法律标准、不断改善国内儿童权利保护状况十分必要。     

The Law of Police Entrapment: Critical Evaluation and Policy Analysis

This article provides a critical analysis of the law of police entrapment and proposes a new foundation for this law. The article shows that the ‘shift of scene’ assumption underlies existing and proposed legal tests for the legitimacy of entrapment. According to this assumption, in some identifiable cases the defendant would have committed a similar offence at a different time and location absent police entrapment. In these cases, entrapment is morally and economically insignificant and hence legitimate. Using probabilistic analysis, the article advances the argument that the ‘shift of scene’ assumption is misguided. Entrapment actually changes (usually raises) the probability of commission, and hence also the defendant’s punishment expectancy, in almost all cases. This increase is hard to justify on grounds of justice or on economic grounds. The article then proposes a different basis for the analysis of entrapment, building on the idea of reallocation of burdens: where the defendant creates particularly heavy burdens that go beyond the offence’s harm expectancy, it is justified to increase his punishment expectancy through entrapment. Furthermore, entrapment should be conceptualized as a mitigating factor, thus allowing the courts to ‘correct’ exaggerated or undue increases in the defendant’s punishment expectancy.     

Public Reason and the Need to Identify State-Relevant Desert

Plausible retributivist justifications for punishment assert that the commission of a moral wrong creates a pro tanto reason to punish the person who committed it. Yet there are good case-based and theoretical reasons to believe that not all moral wrongs are the proper subjects of criminal law or that they are within the proper domain of the state. This article provides these reasons, which suggest that a plausible retributivist justification for punishment must make distinctions between state-relevant and non-state-relevant moral wrongs and (consequently) state-relevant and non-state-relevant desert. The article makes the case for Rawlsian public reason as a plausible method for making these distinctions.     

Censure Theory and Intuitions about Punishment

Many philosophers and laypeople have the following twointuitions about legal punishment: the state has a protanto moral reason to punish all those guilty ofbreaking a just law and to do so in proportion totheir guilt. Accepting that there can be overridingconsiderations not to punish all the guilty inproportion to their guilt, many philosophers stillconsider it a strike against any theory if it does notimply that there is always a supportive moral reasonto do so. In this paper, I demonstrate that censuretheory accounts for these intuitions much better thanany other theory, including forms of retributivismsuch as desert theory and fairness theory, and explainwhy censure theory is able to do so.     

民事诉讼法律责任论

为了调整民事诉讼法律关系、维护民事诉讼法律秩序 ,对违反民事诉讼法的行为 ,除道德谴责和纪律处分外 ,在法律责任方面 ,也应该有一个以程序法律责任为主体、实体法律责任为保障的综合性法律责任体系予以制裁、调整。     

业务过失犯罪处罚问题研究

科学技术的发展在给人类带来巨大的福祉的同时,也使得生产、交通、建筑等高风险领域中过失犯罪的发生率持续上升。为保障社会安全,适应惩治和防范业务过失犯罪的需要,应加重我国刑法对业务过失犯罪的处罚,彻底改变刑法对该类犯罪的处罚轻于普通过失犯罪的普遍现象;适当增加业务过失危险犯;改变多数业务过失犯罪法定刑刑种设置的单一性,增设罚金刑和资格刑。     

Retributivism: The Right and the Good

Victor Tadros claims that punishment must be justified either instrumentally or on the grounds that deserved punishment is intrinisically good. However, if we have deontic reasons to punish wrongdoers then these reasons could justify punishment non-instrumentally. Morever, even if the punishment of wrongdoers is intrinsically good this fact cannot contribute to the justication of punishment because goodness is not a reason-giving property. It follows that retributivism is both true and important only if we have deontic reasons to punish. Tadros also claims that the constitutive aim of punishment is to inflict harm or suffering on offenders. On the contrary, the constitutive aim of retributive punishment is to inflict (justified) wrongs on offenders that are proportionate to the (unjustified) wrongs they commit. Indeed, punishment should involve the least harmful wrong that is proportionate to the wrongfulness of the offense, adequate to facilitate recognition, and (perhaps) conducive to deterrence.     

Consequences Matter More: In Defense of Instrumentalism on Private Versus Public Prisons

Alon Harel wants to show that punishment is a kind of symbolic expression that, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, can only be performed by governmental agents. Contrary to Harel, I argue private agents can in fact realize those features he argues only public agents can realize. I also argue that, even if he were right that only public guards and wardens can punish, it’s unclear why we would have an all-things-considered rather than merely a pro tanto/prima facie duty to punish. An instrumentalist can grant Harel that only state employees can punish, but still decide, on instrumental grounds, to reject public punishment in favor of private “schpunishment.”     

美国惩治国际恐怖分子的法律选择问题

美国十多年来的反恐战略、手段与措施较此前是极大的挑战,甚至突破了既有国际政治框架和国际法律秩序所能够容忍的限度。美国政府扩张武装冲突的外延、新设全球反恐战争概念、避开平时刑法试图选择适用武装冲突法以获得更多的战时特权,其目的是为定点清除找到正当根据,为反恐措施披上合法外衣。但是,选择适用武装冲突法,进而采取军事手段“以暴制暴”,无助于最恰当和最有效地惩治国际恐怖分子。美国政府在巩固既有反恐成果的同时,应当积极反思其错误适用反恐法律所导致的消极后果,以确保其惩治国际恐怖分子法律选择的恰当性与有效性。     

European Human Rights Law and the Normalisation of the ‘Closed Material Procedure’: Limit or Source?

Once a legal abnormality that was criticised on human rights grounds, the closed material procedure (CMP) has now become the main mechanism for dealing with allegedly sensitive security information in the UK. This article considers the role of European human rights law in that process. It argues that the CMP can be conceptualised as the product of human rights law, which has developed so as to legalise and normalise its use, and that this process is symptomatic of a deeper inter‐relationship between human rights law and the preservation of states' security interests, which renders the former inherently unsuitable for dealing with security phenomena.     

刑事诉讼视角下辩护权界说

在现代刑事诉讼中,被指控人的辩护权是一项贯穿始终的诉讼权利,主要表现为根据事实和法律提出和论证对被指控人有利的材料和理由,在实体上反驳指控,提出证明被指控人无罪、罪轻、应当减轻或免除其刑事责任的材料和意见,以及在程序上主张被指控人所拥有的合法的诉讼权利,防止其受到不公正的待遇和不应有的侵犯。但是由于司法理念和制度的弊端使得我国现实层面的辩护权呈现出与应然状态的脱节与偏离,因此,立足现状,改革与完善我国的刑事辩护权就显得尤为重要。     

International Crimes and the Right to Punish

What can international courts say when criminals ask, by what right do you try me? Some authors attempt to draw a connection between humanity's responsibility to call offenders to account and the harm humanity has suffered as a consequence of the offender's crimes. Others have argued that there need not be a special connection between those calling to account and the offenders, as the right to punish offenders is a general right each and every person has. Both lines of argument are ultimately unconvincing. Instead, I argue for a modified version of the second position which proposes a democratically based theory of responsibility for punishment held by international criminal law institutions.     

论植物人的法律人格及权利行使和保护

Although human vegetables lose their capacities of will and do not have the intrinsic attribute of civil subjects, they still have legal personalities and the status of civil subjects. The law has not provided for defects of their legal personalities, and thus civil law shall include human vegetables as objects of guardianship. The system of adult guardianship shall be constructed to supplement and correct the legal personalities of human vegetables. When human vegetables enter into a permanent vegetative state or state of brain death, law may declare the termination of legal personalities of the human vegetable. Due to the unique life state and capacity of act of human vegetables, the exercise of their civil rights faces a series of legal difficulties and challenges, mainly involving important issues such as the right of treatment for life rescue, marital right and reproductive right. The civil law shall ensure that the civil right of human vegetables can be fully enjoyed and effectively protected. Zhang Li, associate professor in civil and business law at Fujian Normal University, and also an invited researcher on civil law, international economic law and international private law, co-operated with Law School of Renmin University of China. Till now, she’s already released 23 theses in law journals and a monograph of the Survey of International Private Law. In addition, she was a member in doing studies (2006) on the legislation of Chinese tort law and presides over the researching (2007) of the legal personality and rights of disabled persons.     

论平等在刑法中的地位

刑法第四条就适用刑法人人平等作了明确的规定,但关于平等在刑法中处于什么位置一直备受争议。关于平等在刑法中的地位,主要涉及三个问题,即:平等是法律原则还是法律权利;平等是否能为刑法的基本原则;刑法平等原则与罪刑法定原则、罪责刑相适应原则之间是什么关系。     

Justifying the Distinction Between Justifications and Power (Justifications vs. Power)

The paper suggests that there are two different ways in which a legal system restricts an individual’s rights. It can either grant a power that revokes the legal protection of the right or it can acknowledge the infringement of a legal right and yet justify such an infringement by means of a criminal law justification. The distinction proposed by the paper has both expressive and practical implications and is useful in solving dilemmas arising in emergencies when constitutional constraints make it impossible to grant the power to revoke legal protection of a basic right. In some of these situations a criminal law justification might support infringement of such a right. This claim is demonstrated by analyzing the ruling of the German Constitutional Court concerning the shooting down of a hijacked airplane in circumstances similar to those of September 11.     

Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law

States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so.     

《行政机关公务员处分条例》的进步与不足

《行政机关公务员处分条例》使我国的行政纪律惩戒规范变得更加完整和系统化。在内容上突出了从严治纪;在程序上对行政处分作了详细的规定,这必将推进行政处分工作的法治化。《行政机关公务员处分条例》的疏漏之处主要有:没有规定国家对行政机关公务员违法违纪行为的追究时效;没有明确是否适用于行政机关内的聘任制公务员;行政机关以外的公务员处分工作是否参照其执行也未予明确。     

Crime, Freedom and Civic Bonds: Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy

There is no question Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom is an engaging and powerful book which will inform legal philosophy, particularly Kantian theories, for years to come. The text explores with care Kant’s legal and political philosophy, distinguishing it from his better known moral theory. Nor is Ripstein’s book simply a recounting of Kant’s legal and political theory. Ripstein develops Kant’s views in his own unique vision illustrating fresh ways of viewing the entire Kantian project. But the same strength and coherence which ties the book to Kant’s important values of independence blinds the work to our shared moral ties grounded in other political values. Ripstein’s thoughts on punishment are novel in that he embeds criminal law, both in its retributivist and consequentialist facets, into Kant’s overarching political philosophy to show how criminal law can be seen as one aspect of the supremacy of public law. But a criminal law solely focused on the preservation of freedom takes little notice of the ways criminal law need expand its view to account for how a polity can restore the victim of a crime back to civic equality, reincorporate offenders after they have been punished and cannot leave past offenders isolated and likely to reoffend, resulting in the rotating door prison system and communities of innocents who remain preyed upon by career criminals. Lastly, a political theory that does not prize our civic bonds will ignore the startling balkanization of our criminal punishment practices, where policing, arresting and imprisonment become tools of racial and social oppression. In illustrating the benefits in viewing criminal law as a coherent part of Kant’s political theory of freedom, Ripstein also highlights what is absent. It then becomes clear that though Kant presents one important facet of punishment, only a republican political theory can meet the most pressing moral demands of punishment by reminding us that criminal law must be used to preserve and strengthen civic society.     

从“非正式帝国主义”到“法律帝国主义”:以近代中国的境遇为例

近代国际法理论框架下的"非正式帝国主义",由最初的"自由贸易"模式扩展至政治、司法等诸般间接控制样式。在"非正式帝国"的塑造中,合乎国际法规范的条约具备去疆界化与再疆界化的意义,即破除正式领土帝国的堡垒,重建非正式帝国的藩篱。法律无疑是实现"非正式帝国主义"不可或缺的重要支撑,而它本身也成就为"非正式帝国主义"的一种典型形式——"法律帝国主义"。以近代中国的境遇为例,法律帝国主义所表达的,正是在政策指引之下,借助条约规定方式,以治外法权为基本实践手段,通过司法机构的跨域构建以及法律职业人士的身体力行,以最终达成西方法播散的整体过程。对此,我们应有清醒的认识。