Boundaries: The Balkans,the Law,and the Sacred

The recent Balkan Wars are a phenomenon of violence across psychicboundaries, the value-based cosmological Worlds that humans necessarilycreate as the substantive content of consciousness. This violenceresults from the human tendency to consider alien values perceivedacross a psychic boundary as a threat. This violence cannot beeliminated by eliminating these boundaries because these boundariesthemselves cannot be eliminated. Instead, the problem can be addressedonly in terms of establishing public institutions that honor a pluralismof values, thereby attenuating the threat that alien values pose.     

COURT COMMUNITIES UNDER SENTENCING GUIDELINES: DILEMMAS OF FORMAL RATIONALITY AND SENTENCING DISPARITY

Efforts to structure sentencing through guidelines involve a fundamental dilemma for the sociology of law—guidelines attempt to emphasize formal rationality and uniformity (Savelsberg, 1992) while allowing discretion to tailor sentences to fit situations and characteristics of individual defendants when courts deem it warranted (substantive rationality). This exercise of substantive rationality in sentencing based on "extralegal" criteria deemed relevant by local court actors risks the kind of unwarranted disparity that guidelines were intended to reduce. We view local courts as arenas in which two sets of sentencing standards meet—formal rational ones articulated by guidelines vs. substantive, extralegal criteria deemed relevant by local court actors. We use statistical and qualitative data from Pennsylvania, a state whose courts have operated under sentencing guidelines for over a decade. Our analysis examines extralegal differences in three county courts' sentencing outcomes, and then documents ways in which substantive rational sentencing criteria are intertwined with defendants' exercise of their right to trial and their race and gender.     

三种法治观辨析

中国先秦法家所倡行的“任法而治” ,古希腊思想家亚里士多德所阐述的“法治优于一人之治” ,以及资本主义国家所实行的“法治原则”、“法治国家”、“法治政府”等 ,是讨论法治时经常提到的三种法治观。虽然这三种法治观都被称作“法治” ,但在治国目的、政治基础、人性假设、制度保障等方面存在着重大差异。     

亲属权利的法律之痛——兼论“亲亲相隐”的现代转化

中国古代"亲亲相隐"是一种亲情伦理立法,现代东西方主要国家法律都确认由亲属身份而自然获得的某些例外特权,这是一种亲属权利立法。我国现行法律在否定"亲亲相隐"的亲情伦理立法以后,却没有确立亲属权利立法原则,这种传统与现代的断裂导致诸多尴尬和悲剧,"佘祥林案"中佘母的不幸遭遇即为典型。本文阐释古代"亲亲相隐"亲情伦理立法和现代亲属权利立法的各自特点,论述法律确认亲属权利的必然性和迫切性,探讨古老"亲亲相隐"对确立我国现代亲属权利制度的正面价值及其在现代人权理念之下的创新转化。     

对中国古代民事法的再认识

中国古代社会存在民事关系及相应的法律调整,而且在国情因素的综合作用下形成了独具特色的规范体系.套用现代的认识范式不能对传统民事法律的内容及形式有足够的理解.     

经济法的实质正义观及其实现

形式正义和实质正义分别属于近代和现代法律分配权利和义务的价值观念。形式正义是按照绝对平等和自由的原则分配权利和义务,而实质正义则是根据主体身份特征进行倾斜式分配。实质正义不但促进了民法的社会化,而且催生了经济法和社会法的诞生。实质正义首先通过立法环节转化为具体的权利和义务规范及法律责任,其次通过行政和司法机关得以实现。     

论辩护律师的法庭地位——以律师与法官的关系为视角

有关辩护律师法庭地位的理论学说,大体可归纳为辩护人系司法机关、辩护人系当事人的利益代理人和辩护人系限制的司法机关三种类型。我国对辩护律师法庭地位认识的变化,总体上经历了从司法机关理论到当事人利益代理人理论的转变过程。综合考虑我国对律师的管理及定位、我国刑事司法对实体真实主义的追求、刑事审判模式的职权主义传统及未来的改革走向等因素,我国刑事审判程序中辩护人的地位宜建立在限制的司法机关之理论基础上。     

PARENS PA TRIAE: Poltergeist of Mental Health Law

This article examines the uncanny resiliency of an ancient doctrine called parens patriae despite legislative and judicial attempts to restrict its use in involuntary commitment proceedings of the mentally ill. Attempts by the legislature and courts to reduce parens patriae rationales, which are heavily promoted by the medical profession, have emphasized police power rationales and have followed two general strategies. One strategy sets up a number of procedural steps that provide monitoring of individual rights at critical junctures during the commitment process. The second strategy attempts to establish multiple criteria that must be met before any commitment decision can by made. It is pointed out that legislatures, and to some extent the courts, have focused on the procedural strategy, while neglecting the more substantive issue of behavioral criteria. It is argued that the lack of attention to the second strategy, specifically in relation to clear definitions and rigorous criteria, have created the impetus for the medical-psychiatric profession to continue its dominance in involuntary commitment proceedings under the guise of parens patriae.     

Mural Sovereignty: From the Twin Towers to the Twin Walls

After the demolition of the Berlin Wall (1989), the construction of the Palestinian Wall from 2002 and the passing of The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (governing the US–Mexico border) enact a return to mural forms of sovereignty: walls are both without and within law, ‘old solutions’ to problems newly-made. While the Berlin Wall is considered a Cold War monument, both the Palestinian Wall and the ‘Secure Fence’ concretize the paradoxical reappearance of ancient territorializing strategies in a post-Cold War New World Order. These paradoxes are related to the coincidence of intensive and extensive forms of contemporary sovereignty: the contraction of a narrowed sovereign border accompanied by the projection of an extended sovereign power. These mural structures are considered in the context of the renovation of Ground Zero, Franz Kafka’s story ‘The Great Wall of China’, and Dan Perjovschi’s mural ‘What Happened to US?’ (Museum of Modern Art 2007).     

“存疑有利于被告人”原则的正确理解适用

"存疑有利于被告人"的思想源于古希腊自然法思想之正义观。作为一项法律规范,它最早出现于古罗马时期。在法律文化的变迁过程中,罪刑法定、无罪推定、刑法谦抑主义、正当程序等刑事法律思想为该原则的形成提供了思想滋养与理论支撑。但是,由于缺乏对该原则内涵的准确把握,导致我国司法实践中至今仍存在多种滥用该原则的现象,这不仅损害了司法公正,也削弱了刑法的法益保护机能。所以,对该原则的使用范围、使用条件和使用阶段需要从司法实践出发认真思考。     

论社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联关系与风险防范

社会危害性理论与法益理论确实可以成为实质刑法观的理论基础,但是社会危害性理论与实质刑法观的关联性比较复杂,并非如部分学者所提示的那样一一对应。就持有传统社会危害性理论立场的学者而言,他们其实并非可以简单地归入实质刑法观立场;而主张改革完善传统社会危害性理论的部分学者,反而坚持实质刑法观立场。在中国语境下,实质刑法观面临的风险与批评,主要根源就在于作为实质刑法观理论基础的社会危害性理论具有太过强大的解释功能,且实质解释论的功能表现包括了保障人权的正面功能与严重侵犯人权的负面功能的两面,呈现出矛盾属性。为了防范风险,不但需要发展实质刑法观,而且需要完善社会危害性理论。单面的实质刑法观或者保守的实质刑法观,主张通过实质罪刑法定原则的限制、实质犯罪论的限制与实质司法解释权的限制,以有效防范开放的实质刑法观可能存在的侵蚀人权保障机能的风险,因而应当成为当下中国最理想的选择。     

论西方法治政府的理念逻辑及其借鉴价值

西方法治政府理念具有人类普遍的进步性,它保护人权以申张个人自由,实行民主政制以维护公民政治权利,实行法治以匡正政府权力界限。西方法治政府理念历经共和主义、民主主义、自由主义、法治主义到服务主义的演进过程。其中,共和主义确立政府形式,民主主义解决主权归属和政府合法性,自由主义表征政府目的,法治主义护佑公民权利,服务主义标明政府行为理性。这些理念对我国的法治政府建设具有重要的借鉴价值。     

论地役权对物权法定原则之补充

物权法定原则是物权法制度中的一项重要原则,主要是指物权的种类和内容由法律直接规定,当事人不能自由创设,也不能变更.这一原则在很大程度上限制了当事人在土地利用中的协议自由.地役权的客体范围广泛,权利内容也不确定,为当事人灵活协议、更好地进行土地资源利用提供了空间,对物权法定原则起到很好的补充作用.随着物之利用形式的不断变化和创新,地役权的优越性已日益体现.     

在亮点与盲点之间——论“不证实自己有罪”的规范对比与冲突

"不得强迫任何人证实自己有罪"是我国《刑事诉讼法》第二次修正首次引入的旨在抑制刑讯逼供、促进人权保障的法律规范,具有宣示性的正面进步意义。然而这一立法亮点降生在我国特定的司法体制体中,无论是法律语言的内涵还是法律原则与规则的创制方面,与国际法、外国法视野中的"不自证其罪"尚存在诸多差异;同时,规范所凸显的价值与国内程序法、实体法、证据法形成的紧张关系,将不断拷问未来法律实施的效能。制度中的盲点只有借助于立法完善、法律解释、法律推理等冲突解决机制的有效介入与解构,亮点才能闪烁出理性的光茫。     

论“全面主义”道德教育学派——兼议对我国学校德育创新的启示

“全面主义”又称“形式主义”，是20世纪中后期西方道德教育理论的重要学派，主要有指令式的道德观、情绪主义的道德观、存在主义道德观和行为准则道德观。“全面主义”重视对道德教育基本概念的分析，主张以形式而非内容特征界定道德和道德判断，强调学生对道德推理过程的理解和道德推理的技能技巧的培养，反对单纯灌输道德内容，认为对人类共有的基本道德价值的探寻是道德教育的目的，坚持道德教育的中立立场。     

国际经济行政法基本原则：平等保护与正当程序

国际经济行政法是调整跨国经济行政关系的国际、国内公法规范与原则的总和,换言之,国际经济行政法是政府规制市场的国际协调法。权利平等保护原则与正当程序原则分别从实体和程序两方面体现了国际经济行政法中的公平正义价值。从法理基础看,这两项原则既是理性精神的反映,也是市场经济发展和全球化趋势的必然要求,以及长期法律实践的结果,它对国际经济行政法领域提出了全新的标准。从实在法角度考察权利平等保护原则与正当程序原则在国际经济行政法领域的具体体现主要有国民待遇、最惠国待遇原则及反补贴制度,WTO对国内程序法的要求及WTO争端解决机制等。需要进一步完善这些制度,旨在从形式的平等过渡到实质的平等,建立平等互利基础上的国际经济法治与宪政规则。     

罪刑法定视野下犯罪成立要件的实质化

罪刑法定主义应当是形式与实质的统一,以此为基础的犯罪概念和犯罪成立要件也必然具有形式与实质的内容。不同法系的国家实现犯罪成立要件实质化的途径各有千秋。由于我国的犯罪构成是犯罪成立条件意义上的行为构成,实现其实质化只能通过对具体犯罪构成要件的解释。犯罪概念中的但书以其价值取向、存在方式、内涵等的特点成为对犯罪构成要件实质化解释的标准和指导原则。     

Ethics,Justice, and Suffering in the Thought of Levinas: The Problem of the Passage

Emmanuel Levinas is the philosopherof suffering as such: a suffering withoutregard for its causes and justifications thatis manifested to the I in its encounter,``beyond being', with the face of the Other. ``Ethics as first philosophy', however,subsequently passes over to justice in Levinas'thought, and this means that it passes througha violence that is very much in being. The movement from ethics to justice revealswhat this essay calls ``the problem of thepassage'. Using the thought of Levinas as itspoint of departure, the essay attempts touncover this problem in all of its profundity. A characteristic of all thinking in the Westernphilosophical tradition, the passage fromA to B is best understood as a mode ofthinking that clings to the passage assuch – in the form of ``A B' – as itsown special way of persisting in being. At thesame time, however, this means that ethicscannot support or comfort justice withoutdevouring itself, which is to say the self that both ethics and justice seem torequire.