《代际正义研究》

作为现代社会新兴的一个正义类型，代际正义关系着当代人和后代人如何公平地分配在享有和传承人类文明中产生的成本和收益。目前，对于代际正义主要有契约论、道义论和功利主义等论证方法。     

论后代人作为环境权主体的不合理性

国外社会和一些国家已经对环境权有了明确的立法,对后代人作为环境权主体给予了最权威的认可。即赋予未出生的人类后代以享受美好环境的权利,从而以此权利来限制现世人的行为及附加义务。我国环境法发展的近几十年中,法律并没有对环境权进行明确规定。近年受国外环境法学的影响,我国很多学者基于代际公平理论也将后代人也列为环境权主体。虽然此理论开创了新的视角,丰富了环境权主体的内容。但其有违法学的基本概念,缺乏现实性和可行性,难以让人信服。     

论一种作为公平的代际正义

在分析罗尔斯对代际正义证明的三种进路存在问题的基础上,通过对于人类存在的两个基本事实的确认和“同一时间入口”假设的区分,在正义环境要求获得满足的条件下,以最大最小原则可以证明代际正义在本质上仍然是一种作为公平的正义。     

正义理念的再诠释——从环境正义谈起

正义是法的价值追求中的永恒目标,正义理念随着时代的变迁和社会矛盾的复杂化而不断变化。由工业文明、科学进步引发的人与自然、生态、环境的冲突危机四伏,需要全新的法律制度和观念形态为之救济,所以正义理念的再诠释不可或缺。本文认为传统的环境正义理念立足于人类中心主义,只能满足人域内部的秩序和公正需求。重新诠释后的新兴的正义理念,将构建种际间的公平、合理,弘扬一种合作的正义理念。     

对魏伊丝代际公平说的全面反思

为保护地球环境资源而创设的代际公平理论是建立在两个错误认识的基础上的,即把集合概念的人类视为类概念的人类和把地球环境资源财产化。假如没有后代人,人们也同样应该承担保护地球环境的义务。魏伊丝舍今世而求助于后代人及其权利,其原因在于权利时代所型塑出来的权利思维模式和路径依赖。虽然代际公平理论能够给我们提供观察和解决环境问题的时间视角,但它本身并不是什么新的法律理念,无法担负起指导现代环境法制建设和环境保护实践的重任。     

贫富差距的代际传承

富二代这个名称,不知是谁创造的,公开用在媒体上,也就是近一两年的事。被概括其间的子弟对这个称呼并不满意,似乎还觉得含有贬义。有的人不满地说:什么‘富二代’?我们是‘第二     

后代人权利：何种权利？——一种权利视角的考察

＂后代人权利＂直接保护的对象是地球环境,而不是后代人的人身和财产利益;与地球环境这一权利客体相对应的＂后代人权利＂的真实主体是整个人类,而不是所谓的后代人;并且,＂后代人权利＂的重心及其实现都在于人们普遍承担的环境保护义务。如果从权利视角观之,＂后代人权利＂实质上就是人类整体对地球环境所享有的权利,即人类权利,而非＂后代人＂的权利。认清＂后代人权利＂的人类权本质,对环境法理论的完善和可持续发展实践都具有极其重大的意义。     

法律算法化的可能与限度

法律与算法在技术性表征上具有类似性,即产生机制的类似性、功能效用的类似性、表达方式的类似性,这些类似性为法律借鉴算法创造了可能性。法律与算法在价值性内核上具有异质性,即运行逻辑的异质性、有效性来源的异质性、认知方式的异质性,这些异质性提示了法律与算法之间的距离。关于类似性与异质性的分析为法律的算法化限度提供了一个总原则,即法律在技术性的层面可以借鉴算法的模式与成果,但在价值性内核上应与算法保持距离。这个总原则可以分解为三个限度,即科学主义限度、建构主义限度、工具主义限度。科学主义限度要求法律在借鉴科学技术的同时,警惕科学求真逻辑对法律正义命题的侵蚀;建构主义限度强调法律借鉴算法建构思维的同时,防止纯粹建构理性对法治的误导;工具主义限度则提示将法律视为达致特定目标工具的同时,要时刻关注法律的价值属性,尤其重视法律人及其反思在控制算法思维泛滥中的重要作用。     

农民工讨薪：“不可能”之后的“可能”

农民工欠薪问题在一定范围内一定程度上的存在,引起了社会各界的广泛关注,甚至总理都出面为农民工讨工资。解决这一问题至关重要,事关社会正义,保护弱势群体,维护社会稳定,以及社会道德良知的培育。为此,各专家学者也展开了深入的有益的探索,提出了诸多措施,然而这些理应有效的措施在现实中并没有想象中的那样为农民工的讨薪带来福音。欠薪问题依然存在,并没有得到多大的改观。其中原委必定是复杂多变的,而问题必定是需要解决的,本文试在分析诸种＂不可能＂的基础上反思、探讨其＂可能＂,以期能裨益于这一问题的解决。     

作为“中介”的“复合平等”——沃尔泽对罗尔斯分配正义理论的批判及其限度

沃尔泽认为,罗尔斯通过＂原初状态设置＂所演绎出的＂正义二原则＂只是一种实现通常之＂简单平等＂的分配正义原则,无法解决由诸多领域所构成之社会的分配正义问题。因而基于对西方世界分配现状的观察及其人性观,沃尔泽提出了＂复合平等＂的分配正义理论。事实上,只有罗尔斯的＂正义二原则＂才能有效实现社会的分配正义。因此,沃尔泽的分配正义理论实际上只是深刻理解罗尔斯＂正义二原则＂的＂过渡理论＂或＂中介＂,而不是对后者的根本性超越。     

回顾与反思:后代人权利论源流考

全球性环境危机和各种环境保护思想为后代人权利理论提供了目的性的环境要素,二战以后自由主义思想的复兴直接为后代人权利理论输送了工具性的权利要素,在此基础上,后代人权利理论得以产生。后代人权利理论在全球环境危机的话语背景下逐步从理论主张向实践领域延伸,在世界范围内产生了广泛的影响。后代人权利理论的发展具有四个方面的逻辑内涵,而要获得进一步的发展,还有许多问题亟待人们去解决。     

由承托双方的正义到公共的正义——由船舶适航性的演进看海商法的发展趋势

船舶适航性问题由来已久,其历史实质也代表着整个海商法的发展史,回顾船舶适航性的古老历史与新近发展进程,船舶适航性演进的内在路径是由追求承托双方之间的正义逐渐延伸到更广泛的公共正义,而这一规律同样也是海商法的发展方向。     

平和司法：恢复性司法的本土化——关于平和司法理念与实践的调研报告

平和司法是在学习国外恢复性司法理念、实证分析烟台市检察机关的办案实践、考察外地检察机关的先进经验的基础上提出的全新命题,是恢复性司法本土化的一个尝试。平和司法可分为司法心态(基础要素)、司法模式(手段要素)、司法境界(目的要素)三个层面,与恢复性司法最大的不同就在于它的层次性和层次之间的互动性。平和司法在执法理念上与传统的司法理念有很大的转变,与宽严相济的刑事政策相适应,符合社会主义法治理念的本质要求。实践平和司法将对维护社会和谐稳定、预防犯罪、节约司法资源、维护被害人和犯罪人合法权益具有积极意义。     

恢复性司法的发展、挑战与选择

传统的刑事司法制度在预防与控制犯罪中遇到了难以克服的困境,在此背景下产生了恢复性司法运动。恢复性司法运动在保护被害人权利,弥补受损社会关系、帮助被告人重返社会等方面取得了巨大的成就。然而,由于传统恢复性司法在制度设计、程序规范、实施时间等方面存在诸多缺陷,因此,对其目的、效果的质疑也与日俱增。而从制度上对恢复性司法进行完善,特别是加强审前程序的司法监督和完备审理后制度设计,是恢复性司法面对挑战的新选择。     

The Importance of Perceptions in Restorative Justice Conferences: The Influence of Offender Personality Traits on Procedural Justice and Shaming

Research suggests that restorative justice (RJ) conferences are more just than traditional court processing due to the presence of procedural justice (PJ). These conferences also promote reintegrative shaming which, in contrast to disintegrative shaming, allows offenders to repair their ties with the community. Yet, fairness and the type of shaming experienced may depend on perceptions of the offender. We argue that the personality traits of negative emotionality and low constraint influence offenders' evaluations of the fairness of these conferences, which have implications for their experience of shaming. We test these arguments using data from a sample of 498 offenders involved in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. Results reveal that personality traits affect perceptions of PJ and both types of shaming, and that PJ mediates these effects. The findings support the notion that RJ conferences are perceived to be procedurally just and reintegrative for certain types of offenders.     

“第三职能”的扩张与中国大学的未来

20世纪80年代以来,中国大学的角色发生了重大的变化,大学体系建立之初仅承担教育职能,目前已确立了科学研究的第二职能和直接服务社会的第三职能,与其他国家不同,中国大学的第三职能占有重要地位,由此派生出由大学控制和经营的企业,并对大学科研和发展产生了影响,中国大学的未来,不仅要考虑第三职能有效发挥和社会短期需求,而且更应该以大学在国家创新系统中的角色定位、大学的社会使命作为基点,凸显大学保持与传播知识、探索新知识及对社会的建设性批评精神,国家要努力建立多元化大学体系,要对少数骨干大学进行重点扶持,适当收缩其第三职能,主管部门应汲取历史教训,尽力避免长官意志与“一刀切”行为。     

Exploring the Justice of Punishments: Framing, Expressiveness, and the Just Prison Sentence

This paper examines views about the justice of punishments for offenders convicted of five major types of offenses—drug, violent, corporate, property, and victimless crimes. We focus on the just punishment and the just dispersion in the punishment distribution, together with observers' framing and expressiveness; and we test for interrespondent differences. Data are drawn from six U.S. samples interviewed in 1982, a probability sample of the adult population of a major city and samples of five special groups, prison inmates, police officers, law-school and high-school students, and Job Corps trainees. Respondents' judgments were obtained using Rossi's factorial survey method. Fictitious offenders were constructed by randomly combining offender, offense, and victim characteristics; and respondents used a line-matching technique to rate the justice of punishments randomly assigned to fictitious offenders. Analysis is guided by the framework for empirical justice analysis, which provides an integrated set of procedures for estimation and testing. Results indicate that respondents in all samples save one disagree with each other on the just punishment; and the six samples yield four distinct average orderings of just prison sentences. However, large majorities in all six samples find the dispersion in the punishments experimentally put into the vignette world to be too small relative to the just dispersion. More broadly, comparing the results obtained here from the probability sample of a major city with results from a comparable study on the justice of earnings, we find two interesting symmetries—approximately 1% of the general population is contrarian, regarding earnings as a bad and time in prison as a good; and approximately 92% to 94% of the population regard earnings inequality as too high and prison-time inequality as too low. Finally, this study provides additional evidence that the general population in the United States exhibits independence of mind informing their ideas about what constitutes the just earnings and the just punishment.     

宽严相济刑事政策与和谐社会

宽严相济刑事政策是我国刑事政策的新发展,同时也是对实行20多年的"严打"政策的反思和纠正.宽严相济刑事政策与和谐社都"以人为本",因而内在地联系在一起.构建和谐社会需要实行宽严相济刑事政策,因为它能满足和谐社会化解社会矛盾的需要、节约社会资源和刑事司法资源的需要;宽严相济刑事政策能促进和谐社会构建,因为它能有效地维护社会稳定,促进社会和谐,协调社会利益.所以,在构建和谐社会过程中,必须采取有效措施认真贯彻宽严相济刑事政策.     

Justice in Teams: The Effects of Interdependence and Identification on Referent Choice and Justice Climate Strength

Using theories of social comparison and influence as a lens through which to view the operation of justice in teams, this study explores the effects of interdependence and group identification on referent choice and justice climate strength. 372 undergraduate students participated in a laboratory experiment with two levels each of team interdependence, procedural treatment, and outcome favorability. The results showed that members of highly interdependent teams were more likely to make intergroup justice comparisons and that group identification partially mediated this relationship. Interdependence was also related to variability in team climate perceptions, with group identification as a mediator between interdependence and procedural justice climate strength. Overall, the findings highlight interdependence and social identity as contextual variables that influence the emergence of team-level justice perceptions.     

A Vigilante Model of Justice: Revenge,Reconciliation, Forgiveness,and Avoidance

Once a working relationship is damaged through an act of injustice, how do the victim and offender repair their relationship? What causes the victim to let go of the anger and resentment and then reconcile with the offender? We propose a theory that the likelihood of forgiveness and reconciliation is greatly enhanced, and revenge and avoidance greatly decreased, if justice is first served. That is, forgiveness follows justice; without justice, forgiveness is much less likely. Justice may be served one of three ways: (1) by the victim evening the score; (2) by the organization punishing the offender; or (3) by the offender repenting. We recommend that managers establish a procedurally just climate so that victims of offense seek distributive justice through formal channels rather than seeking it themselves through revenge.