The Use of Unwritten Legal Principles by Courts*

Abstract. I argue that one can distinguish two types of unwritten legal principles as applied by courts (in Europe). On the one hand, what are called “structural principles,” which are induced, or at least pretended to be induced, from the written law. On the other hand, what are called “ideological principles,” which are not induced from the actual legal system, but refer to current dominant beliefs in society as to morals, politics or other non legal ideologies. It is argued that the distinction between structural legal principles and ideological legal principles could be an important element for the elaboration of a legal principle theory, as both these types of principles meet a different need and play a different role in legal practice. Structural legal principles primarily meet the need for a new ius commune, in order to achieve the coherence and the completeness of the legal system, whereas ideological legal principles, just like the human rights, meet a revived demand for an ethical framework for the law.     

论经济法责任的独立性

经济法责任的独立性是经济法基础理论中的一个重要范畴。解决经济法责任独立性问题首先需要明确学界关于法律责任分类的标准与依据。不能把以责任的性质为标准和以责任所属的部门法为标准对责任的划分相混淆。经济法责任的独立在于其所属的部门法的独立性 ,即经济法责任的构成要件的独立 ,而不在于经济法责任的具体形式的独立。     

Mos Geometricus and the Common Law Mind: Interrogating Contract Theory

Euclidian theories have it that there exist one or a small number of apex principles from which the entire fasciculus of rules of contract law can be logically deduced. Two arguments are marshalled against the Euclidian project. First, that it has been unsuccessfully attempted before – in the form of the nineteenth century contract law treatise which emulated the civil lawyer's rationalistic model, mos geometricus – cautioning us against setting much store by its present reincarnation. Second, that the common law's methodology makes it resistant to this form of theorising. Euclidian theory presupposes a picture of rules on which: a) cases involve an application of logically prior rules; b) rules are reliably identifiable by different actors in the legal system; and c) rules normatively range over an indefinite spectrum of future cases. It will be argued that the common law defies this picture of rules thus rendering Euclidian theory analytically impossible.     

Effect of Blameworthiness and Outcome Severity on Attributions of Responsibility and Damage Awards in Comparative Negligence Cases

We studied the effects of accident victims' legal blameworthiness and the severity of their injuries on determinations of responsibility and damage awards. In general, participants tended to ascribe more fault to victims than warranted by the facts presented, displaying an antiplaintiff bias. When attributing fault and awarding damages, they were especially sensitive to the blameworthiness of the victim when the consequences of the accident were severe rather than mild. These findings appeared not to be mediated by emotional reactions to the victims. Participants tended to conflate issues of liability with what ought to have been the legally distinct question of damages. They appeared to decide comparative negligence awards not by determining percentage fault and gross damages as discrete items and then computing their product, as the law prescribes, but rather by using more holistic judgmental processes.     

Rights,goals, and hard cases

Rights have two properties which prima facie appear to be inconsistent. The first is that they are conditional in the sense that one some occasions it is always justifiable for someone to act in a way which appears to be inconsistent with someone else's rights, such as when the defence of necessity applies. The second is that rights are indefeasible in the sense that they are not subject to being defeated our outweighed by utilitarian or policy considerations. If we view rules and the rights which they establish as being subject to a ceteris paribus clause, the form of which generates out the exceptions, the conditionality of rights becomes reconcilable with their nondefeasibility. Such a view of rules and rights would entail that the goals of the law and their orderings be considered as a part of the law. When so viewed, propositions about goals and their orderings become legitimate premises for legal reasoning, furnishing solutions to hard cases in the law of torts, without resort to balancing of interests or judicial discretion.     

法律效力理论中的实效性原则

法律拥有效力部分地依赖于其所在的法律体系具有实效,即得到人们大体上的服从。这就是法律效力理论中的实效性原则。对于各种类型的法律效力理论来说,法律效力标准都需要来自法律本质、功能的道德原则的支持。表面上,作为纯粹事实的实效似乎与各种类型的法律效力理论都不协调,但实质上,法律效力依赖于实效是源于"法律的任务应该交给最具实力的人或机构来完成"这一道德原则。根据该原则,实效难题可以得到很好的解决。     

Psychology and legal change

From its inception, research in “law and psychology” has had an explicitly applied focus. In large part, psychologists have studied legal issues and participated as experts in the legal process in order to improve law and enhance the quality of its justice. This article examines whether and how this can be done. A taxonomy of relationships between the two disciplines is presented which characterizes law and psychology research in terms of its potential for legal change. The use of psychology of effect legal change requires a bringing together of both psychological and legal paradigms. But important differences exist between the styles and methods of reasoning, proff, and justfication in psychology and law. The implications of those differences for the use of psychological data in legal change efforts are developed, as are other aspects of “legalism” that may hinder or impede the effectiveness of psychologically oriented law reform. Finally, limitations of a “factual jurisprudence” that derived from the nature of psychological data are examined.     

A Case Against Crippling Compensation in International Law of State Responsibility

The obligation of States to provide full reparation for internationally wrongful acts, including by full compensation, is one of the bedrock principles of international law. The article challenges this principle for cases where compensation is crippling for the responsible State or its peoples, which can occur when State responsibility is implemented before international courts and tribunals. The International Law Commission's decision not to qualify full reparation for instances of crippling compensation in its influential Articles on State responsibility was an unpersuasive legal position to adopt in 2001, and its rationale has aged badly. However, the failure by States and other actors to challenge it in the following two decades signified its endorsement by the international legal process. Nevertheless, the case against the permissibility of crippling compensation in modern international law can still be made, both on a case-by-case basis and at the level of customary secondary rules of State responsibility.     

Law and Emotion: A Proposed Taxonomy of an Emerging Field

Scholars from diverse fields have begun to study the intersection of emotion and law. The notion that reason and emotion are cleanly separable—and that law rightly privileges and admits only of the former—is deeply engrained. Law and emotion scholarship proceeds instead from the belief that the legal relevance of emotion is both significant and deserving of (and amenable to) close scrutiny. It is organized around six approaches, each of which is defined and discussed: emotion-centered, emotional phenomenon, emotion theory, legal doctrine, theory of law; and legal actor.Drawing on the analytic value of the proposed taxonomy, any exploration of law and emotion should strive to identify which emotion(s) it takes as its focus; distinguish implicated emotion-driven phenomena; explore relevant and competing theories of the emotions; limit itself to a particular type of legal doctrine; expose underlying theories of law; and make clear which legal actors are implicated. Directions for future research are discussed and cross-disciplinary collaboration encouraged.

法律视域外的公司犯罪治理路径

公司犯罪的治理既要有法律的对策，还应探索法律视域外的路径。在市场导向上。可采取规制市场无序竞争、完善信息合理流动机制、营建公司信用评价体系与合理分配公司社会责任的路径；在伦理规制上，可针对公司的自身伦理、经济行为伦理与环境伦理采取相应的对策。     

正当防卫中“正在进行”之界定的不同学说分析——司机致劫匪伤亡事件引发的思考

正当防卫是法律赋予公民的一项保护合法权益的权利，国家赋予公民这项权利之目的是及时制止正在进行的不法侵害。国内不断出现有关司机防卫致犯罪嫌疑人伤害的事件，引起了人们的关注。对于正当防卫的时间要件，有空间说和时间说等不同的理论观点。但对于El益严峻的社会治安状况和基于成文法的规定及社会秩序之考量，应当严格遵守正当防卫的时间条件保护正当防卫人的应有权利。     

Suicide cases in civil law: do the legal tests make sense?

The legal 'tests' for suicide liability in negligence and workmen's compensation law have developed along parallel, but not identical, lines to the tests for criminal responsibility. Current legal precedent has shifted the focus from cognitive awareness and irresistible impulse theories to the ability of a negligent act or injury to cause an abnormal mental state. The courts, in their variable interpretation of these mental state tests, leave no clear guidelines for the psychiatric expert asked to address suicidal behavior from the standpoint of responsibility.     

The Special Case Thesis. An Assessment of R. Alexy's Discursive Theory of Law

Legal Argumentation Theories seek mainly to develop procedures, criteria and principles which can guarantee a proper justification of legal propositions within modern legal systems. In doing this, those theories solicit in general an interconnection between practical reasoning and legal reasoning. This paper refers mainly to what seems currently to be the most elaborate theory of legal argumentation, that is R. Alexy's Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Although the discussion is mainly concentrated on critical points of R. Alexy's theory, this paper's scope is slightly broader; it attempts to present an overall view of the current discursive theory of law. This is mainly performed through the critical examination of R. Alexy's Special Case Thesis, which seems to raise a handful of counter arguments on behalf of the other proponents of Legal Argumentation. In the first part the special case thesis is presented, as well as the main objections to it. In the second part the validity of the special case thesis is checked against K. Günther's model of practical discourse, which proves to be more elaborate in certain points, when compared with the corresponding model of R. Alexy. In the third part it is shown that the special case thesis can be accepted consistently only if it is combined with a normative theory of law that advocates the interconnection of the concept of law with the idea of right morality. It is further suggested that legal discourse has to be perceived as a special case of a broader moral-political discourse that “explains” or “justifies” (morally) the various restrictions that the positive legal systems impose on the legal discourse.     

Therapeutic jurisprudence and responsivity: Finding the will and the way in offender rehabilitation

Correctional systems worldwide are currently undergoing a shift towards rehabilitation. Underpinning rehabilitation are the principles of risk, need, and responsivity. Responsivity includes internal responsivity (offender characteristics) and external responsivity (staff and setting characteristics). The responsivity principle has been neglected in the literature. While contemporary psychological theories of offender rehabilitation address internal responsivity, they do not address external responsivity, particularly in relation to the impact of the law. Therapeutic jurisprudence as a legal theory provides the opportunity to complement psychological theory and to address responsivity in offender rehabilitation. Therapeutic jurisprudence utilizes psychological knowledge to determine ways in which the law can enhance individual well-being. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate a psycholegal approach to offender rehabilitation. Psychological approaches can be applied to motivate offenders and provide them with the opportunity to make informed decisions about participation in rehabilitation programmes. However, this approach will not succeed without harnessing correctional staff as legal actors and potential therapeutic agents. A cognitive--behavioural model of an organizational culture change towards rehabilitation is proposed. In this endeavour “the will and the way” in both offenders and staff can be harnessed to maximize the therapeutic effects of the law.     

Bite Mark Analysis in Foodstuffs and Inanimate Objects and the Underlying Proofs for Validity and Judicial Acceptance

Even though one of the first bite mark cases was Doyle v. State in 1954 (a bitten cheese case), the research has focused on bite marks inflicted in human skin. As published Papers, Case Reports, or Technical Notes can constitute precedents which are relied upon in making the legal arguments and a considerable amount of case law exists in this area, we present a systematic review on bite mark analysis in foodstuffs and inanimate objects and their underlying proofs for validity and judicial acceptance according to Daubert rulings. Results showed that there is vulnerability in these procedures, and it is essential to demand for focus scrutiny on the known error rates when such evidence is presented in trials. These kinds of bite marks are well documented; however, there has been little research in this field knowing that the protocols of analysis and comparison are the responsibility of the forensic odontologists.     

《管子》思想与古代自然法学说同异之研讨

《管子》思想与自然法（natural law）学说比较接近,都主张人定法需遵循一定的原则,以及承认永恒不变的原则存在。自然法学说坚称违背自然法的人定法无效力可言,并将永恒原则与人定法区别开来。管子学说主张制定法在现实中具最高效力,未有永恒原则与制定法的严格区分。双方在永恒原则的内容上存在诸多差异,如自然法主张平等、正义、人人得其所应得等无差别地适用于所有人的原则;管子学说却将人划为君臣父子等不同的身份级别,主张不同级别间的服从及统属。     

Causing harm: Criminal law

This paper offers two related things. First, a theory of singular causal statements attributing causal responsibility for a particular harm to a particular agent based on the conjunction of a positive condition (necessitation) and a negative condition (avoidability) which captures the notions of sufficiency and necessity in intuitive ideas about agent causation better than traditional conditio sine qua non based theories. Second, a theory of representation of causal issues in the law. The conceptual framework is that of Game Trees and Games in Extensive Form. Causal conditions are defined set-theoretically over Game Trees; causal issues and fundamental distinctions (dependent versus independent intervening causes, foreseeability or not of harm etc.) arising in legal cases are accommodated by the device of a probability distribution over the game-tree representation of cases.This theory of causing harm, or agent causation is presented in greater detail in L. Aqvist & P Mullock, Causing Harm: a logico-legal study (forthcoming, de Gruyter, Berlin) dealing primarily with causation in tort law.     

繁荣发展中的中国民法学

2006年的中国民法学在各个方面呈现了繁荣发展的局面,尤其围绕着物权立法和相关理论问题展开了激烈的讨论,其中涉及到物权法的合宪性、物权法定原则及其缓和、所有权的平等保护、登记制度等。此外,在法学方法论、民法典体系与总则、人格权法、合同法和侵权法等重要部门法中都出现了新的理论观点,尤其在侵权法领域,随着立法工作的推进,围绕着侵权法立法模式、归责原则、具体侵权形态出现了较多的学术成果。青年学者的大量涌现,也反映了我国民法学的日益繁荣。但学术成果仍有一些浮躁的痕迹。