Can Tort Law Be Moral?

According to the established orthodoxy, the law of private wrongs—especially common law torts—fails to map onto our moral universe. Four objections in particular have caught the imagination of skeptics about the moral foundations of tort law: They purport to cast doubt over the moral appeal of the duty of care element; they target the seemingly inegalitarian objective standard of care; they object to the morally arbitrary elements of factual causation and harm; and they complain about the unnecessary extension of liability under the guise of the proximate cause element. Analyzing these four prevailing arguments concerning the a‐moral (and, with regard to some interpretations, anti‐moral) character of tort law, I shall seek to show that the normative structure of tort law can, nonetheless, be reconstructed so as to reflect, to an important extent, our considered judgments about basic moral principles.     

期待可能性的体系性地位——以罪责构造的变动为线索的考察

期待可能性的体系性地位是期待可能性中的一个重要问题,它关系到责任的规范构造,甚至犯罪论体系的逻辑结构。本文以德日刑法学为背景,讨论了期待可能性的产生过程,由此考察随着期待可能性的出现而发生的罪责的内容变化,以及责任与构成要件之间逻辑关系的变动。本文认为,期待可能性是规范评价要素,它和故意、过失等心理性要素是有所不同的。在司法活动中,心理性的事实判断应当先于评价性的规范判断。但在罪责要件的构造当中,期待可能性是作为积极的归责要素还是作为消极的责任阻却事由,是一个值得商榷的问题。基于思想上的经济性和诉讼上的便利性的考量,本文认为,将期待不可能作为罪责排除事由是合适的。     

类型思维:刑法中规范构成要件要素存在的法理根据

理性至上与科学实证主义为刑法中记述性构成要件要素的创建及其普遍化提供了原动力,而同时它们的历史局限性也为规范构成要件要素的产生与存在敞开了大门。法学方法一元论为规范构成要件要素的类型特征与开放结构奠定了认识论基础,而规范构成要件要素的类型结构则是法学方法一元论在刑法中的一种具体体认。对规范构成要件要素具体内涵的把握也必将成为司法实践中的一个重要内容,刑法诠释方法的发达必将成为其发展方向。     

We All Make Mistakes: A ‘Duty of Virtue’ Theory of Restitutionary Liability for Mistaken Payments

In contrast to the moral foundations of contract, tort, and the law of property, which are generally regarded as elements of Kantian ‘right’, the liability to return the value of mistaken payments is, it is argued, an example of the law's enforcing a duty of virtue, the legalisation of the duty of beneficence in a way similar (though not identical) to how the law might instantiate a duty of easy rescue. Accordingly, one of Birks's most cherished theses – that the law of unjust enrichment represents a distinctive element of private law – can be made out: it is distinctive in having an entirely different normative source: in virtue, not in right. But this result comes at a cost: (1) a legal system could function more or less justly without such a liability; (2) Birks's thesis that liability for mistaken payment is the archetype or paradigmatic case of liability for unjust enrichment would have to be abandoned; and (3) we would have to recognise that the ground of this liability is policy‐motivated.     

麦考密克论融贯

麦考密克对规范性融贯和描述性融贯的区分，启示我们在司法裁判或证立过程中不但要重视规范要素的融贯、而且要重视事实要素的融贯，规范性融贯与描述性融贯密不可分，法律方法领域不应忽视对证据融贯性要求的研究。努力在法律体系内确保价值融贯的原则论证方式，不仅是对司法证立的一种形式要求，而且含有正当性要求，它把司法行为限制在合法范围内，在约束法官判决主观因素的同时，增加了司法行为的机动性。     

奸淫幼女构成犯罪应以明知为前提 --为一个司法解释辩护

在严格责任与罪过责任分立的基础上,奸淫幼女构成犯罪必须以明知为前提,这样才能在保护幼女和保护被告人的合法权益之间求得一种法治视野下的平衡.应当摈弃"应当知道"的传统提法,而把奸淫幼女的明知分为确切知道和推定知道两种.从最高法院关于奸淫幼女问题的司法解释出发,我国现行的刑事司法解释体制及其形式应该逐渐由抽象的司法解释过渡到个案性质的司法解释,再进一步过渡到判例制度.     

走向现代刑法:违法性认识的规范展开

在"刑民不分"的前现代法律中,"不知法不免责"之"法",主要是伦理法、民商法,"责"则主要是采客观归责的侵权责任.而在"刑民有别"的现代法律中,由"前置法定性与刑事法定量相统一"的法益保护和不法制裁的部门法层级结构和比例分配所决定,客观构成要件中的规范要素以前置法的规范评价为核心,相应地,行为之前置法不法性认识乃主观构...     

Ideals and Practices in the Rule of Law: An Essay on Legal Politics

Massoud, Mark Fathi. 2013 . Law's Fragile State: Colonial, Authoritarian, and Humanitarian Legacies in Sudan . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 277. Paper $34.99. This essay responds to the three commentators in the symposium on my book, Law's Fragile State, by describing the sociolegal study of the rule of law as an investigation into both a set of ideals (the rule of law as a normative question) and a set of practices (the rule of law as an empirical question). Studying the rule of law involves understanding the contingent nature of its ideals as well as investigating the actual work that lawyers, judges, state officials, aid workers, activists, and others have done in specific contexts to promote legal remedies to social or political ills. These overlapping layers of the study of the rule of law—ideals and practices, normative and empirical—provide a sociolegal framework for understanding the successes and failures of legal work and, ultimately, how citizens experience state power in democratic and nondemocratic societies alike.     

行政规范性文件之民事司法适用

我国民事司法实践中,行政规范性文件是重要裁判说理依据。行政规范性文件民事司法适用之法理基础,在于其是我国规范等级体系的有机组成部分、是我国民法非正式法源,且在公私法融合的背景下,行政规范性文件也无可避免地需要适用于民事司法。行政规范性文件的民事司法适用分为法源与非法源意义上的适用。非法源意义上的适用,指行政规范性文件"为认定事实之依据"。法源意义上的民事司法适用规则,包括形式、实质、程序三个方面。     

依法行政的宪法性调适——关于行政法治模式扩展的理论解释与方向探索

"依法行政"是中国建设法治国家的基础性制度要素,但该要素所预设的严格规范框架逐渐不能适应世界范围内行政权权能结构与行政法规则体系变化的需要,也不适应我国行政体制改革的结构性需求。中国行政法改革采行功能主义路径,大力引进行政的公开性与民主性理念及其制度,对原有行政法体系形成较大冲击。"新行政法"试图进行理论回应,其根本的规范性诉求就在于"依宪行政"。这一理论与制度的变化只能回溯到宪法层面进行解释。"依法行政"必须依靠理论背景更加厚重的"依宪行政"才能够克服传统行政法治模式的危机,实现行政法治模式的扩展。本文导引出的"依宪行政"的问题域和制度域还有利于重新思考并探索一种"行政宪政主义"的宪法实施路径,因而具有更为根本的理论价值和实践意义。     

The Inevitability of Moral Evaluation*

According to contemporary legal positivism, law claims to create obligations. In order for law to be able to create obligations, it must be capable of having authority. Legal positivism claims that for law to be capable of having authority, it only has to meet non‐moral or non‐normative conditions of authority. In this paper it is argued that law can only be capable of having authority if it also meets certain normative conditions. But if something must meet certain normative conditions in order to be capable of having authority and if it must be capable of having authority in order to be law, then it is only law if it is conceivable that it meets these normative conditions and this can only be ascertained by means of an evaluation. Therefore, legal positivism's claim that determining what the law is does not necessarily, or conceptually, depend on moral or other evaluative considerations (the separation thesis) is incompatible with its claim that law must be able to create obligations. Further, an analysis of Hart's concept of law shows that it is not only possible that the identification of the law depends on moral evaluation, as Hart claims, but that it is conceptually necessary that it does.     

医疗损害责任的规制逻辑与适用路径——以《民法典》与“医事法”的协调为视角

为推进对《民法典》的规范阐释,促使其与医事法的衔接、互补,应对"医疗损害责任"的规制逻辑与适用路径进行明晰。"医疗损害责任"整体延续了《侵权责任法》的概念体系和框架结构,在说明义务、责任主体以及责任构成等方面加以创新。其作为《民法典》的具体规范,对总则编之规定予以遵从,是侵权责任编一般规定的特别法;其作为医事法的基本范畴,处于上位效力层级之中,与其他规范条文形成条件关系和并列关系。鉴于此,应遵循"从民法典到医事法"的适用路径,藉由内外在规范的自足与互助,明确规范条文之间的内在关联,实现规范概念的阐明和规范内涵的拓补,以推动《民法典》相关规则的贯彻实施,促进我国医事法学的蓬勃发展。     

Access to justice and human rights in Afghanistan

In anthropological and legal literature, the phenomenon termed ‘legal pluralism’ has been interpreted as a co-presence of legal orders which act in relation to their own ‘levels’ of referring ‘fields’. The Afghan normative network is generally described in terms of pluralism, where different normative systems such as customs, shari’a (Islamic law), state laws and principles deriving from international standard of law (e.g., human rights) coexist. In order to address the crucial question of access to justice, in this article, I stress the category of legal pluralism by introducing the hypothesis of an inaccessible normative pluralism as a key concept to capture the structural injustices of which Afghans are victims. Access to justice can be considered a foundational element of every legal project. Globally, the debates concerning the diffusion and application of human rights develop at the same time ideologically, politically, and pragmatically. Today in Afghanistan, these levels are expressed in all their complexity and ambivalence. It is therefore particularly significant to closely observe the work done by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and to discuss the issue of human rights by starting from a reflection on what might be defined a socio-normative condition of inaccessibility.     

The morality of law and economics

The moral heart of normative law and economics is efficiency, especially dynamic efficiency that takes incentive effects into account. In the economic theory, justificatory argument is inherently at the institutional- or rule-level, not an the individual- or case-level. InMarkets, Morals, and the Law Jules Coleman argues against the efficiency theory on normative grounds. Although he strongly asserts the need to view law institutionally, he frequently grounds his criticisms of law and economics in arguments from little more than direct moral intuition about individual cases. He evidently holds that consent provides a better normative basis for law than does efficiency and he uses consent arguments to attack recommendations from scholars in law and economics. His own chief contribution, however, is to law and economics rather than to any alternative theory.     

规范性文件制定过程中的法律风险及其防范

规范性文件制定主体在制定规范性文件时面临因操作不规范、制定内容不合理或者有其他不符合法律规定情形的法律风险。因此。规范性文件制定过程中存在因法律风险而带来的责任承担问题。要防范规范性文件制定中的法律风险,必须具备制定主体适格、内容合法合理、程序正当等基本要件。     

规范裂缝的判定与解决

规范裂缝是指规则指示的结果与其背后的正当化理由所指示的结果不一致。它通常表现为原则与规则的冲突。规范裂缝的存在意味着在遵守规则与做正确之事之间存在着内在冲突,它是规范的不完善状态,应该予以消除。规范裂缝理论大致包括三个基本问题,即规范裂缝的判定、类型与解决原则。法律具有权威性、规则性和体系性等结构性特征,它们既造成法律规范裂缝的判定与解决的特殊困难,也提供了根本性和支配性的原则,即无论是规范裂缝的判定还是解决,都必须建立在既有的权威性理由之上,不得简单地诉诸个人慎思或道德权衡。法律推理的研究应该加强对法律性质的法哲学反思。     

有效益的交易:合同诈骗罪规范目的证成——以骗逃部分铁路运费案为分析重点

合同诈骗罪“兜底条款”如何理解与解释,存在的争议焦点之一是怎样看待合同诈骗罪“列明”行为的价值以及其是否具有构成要件的意义。骗逃部分铁路运费的行为,能否以合同诈骗罪的“兜底条款”定罪处刑,目的解释是可否入罪判断需要坚持的最为重要的解释原则,目的论限缩是填补刑法隐蔽性漏洞的有效方法。符合规范保护目的的行为,应当通过目的论限缩将其出罪化。合同诈骗罪所涉的市场秩序与公私财产损失,是指没有交易目的或者基础、欠缺交易效益与效率前提下的市场秩序与财产损失。有效益或者有效率的、合乎交易目的的合同欺诈行为,不属于合同诈骗罪的规制范围。源于罪刑法定原则的要求,目的解释只应当用于出罪化。经济犯罪的刑法教义学研究与规范目的的理解,离不开社科法学智识的浸润、滋养与支撑。否则,经济犯罪的刑法解释与司法适用,就有可能违反基本的经济规律与经济法则而走向谬误。骗逃部分铁路运费的行为,不应当按照合同诈骗罪的“兜底条款”定罪处刑。     

犯罪本质理论的困境与出路——以我国民族地区的刑事法治发展为中心

刑法是规范性、功能性和文化性的统一体。虽然社会危害性说与法益侵害说都在一定程度上满足了刑法的功能性要求,但社会危害性说完全消解了刑法的规范性,而法益侵害说则忽视了刑法的文化性。因而,这两种学说在刑法规范意识较为缺乏且具有丰富的习惯法社会实践的我国民族地区的刑事法治发展中均陷入了困境。与此不同,形式违法性与实质违法性相结合的规范违反说能同时兼顾刑法的规范性、功能性和文化性之要求,有利于刑法与民族习惯法之间的良性互动,因而在我国民族地区刑事法治建设中应当予以提倡,并应通过对我国犯罪构成理论的完善来加以贯彻。     

Falling Short of Constitutional Norms: Does “Normative (In)Congruence” Explain the Courts' Inability to Promote the Right to Water in South Africa?

In South Africa, municipal noncompliance with legislation promoting the constitutional right to sufficient water is both a failure of the rule of law and a betrayal of that right. Judicial intervention has prompted formalistic compliance with water law, but the underlying commitment to sufficient water remains unfulfilled. Does the inability of courts to achieve social justice despite enforcing social legislation confirm the thesis that commitments to the rule of law and to social justice are inconsistent, that upholding the rule of law may not advance social justice? This article offers an alternative to this “inconsistency thesis,” arguing that the rule of law can accommodate social justice if it demands normative congruence alongside congruence with formal rules. Empirical investigation reveals that structural challenges and the multifarious normative demands on officials create a condition of normative incongruence that impedes the pursuit of social justice, even as courts compel congruence with formal rules.     

规范性文件行政复议制度

行政复议法第 7条确立了规范性文件行政复议制度。然而 ,该制度在操作过程中存在较大困难 ,导致该制度形同虚设 ,给行政法治实践制造了诸多新的问题。其根本原因在于 ,规范性文件行政复议的理论困乏。有必要在行政法理论上给规范性文件行政复议一个初步的定位 ,如对公民完全诉愿权的肯定、对规范化层级行政监督权的肯定、对全面司法审查的隐含肯定等。通过定位合乎逻辑地建立起理性的规范性文件行政复议制度 ,该制度的实质在于使规范性文件行政复议独立化、全面化 ,并强化复议机关审查的权威性。