基于经验法则的法律论证

我国法官的裁判文书说理欲实现规范化,必须重视法律论证,为每个主张与判断提供充分的理由。最高人民法院的指导意见表明经验法则是法官进行法律论证的重要理由。经验法则作为一种实践描述能够推动法律论证填补规范缝隙。在事实认定的论证环节,经验法则既是证明规则与证据规则的形成背景,更是事实推定的直接依据。只有妥善把握经验法则的盖然性,才能规避逆谬误与后见偏差等认知陷阱,合理借助经验法则论证三段论中的小前提。在法律适用的论证环节,经验法则是类比过程中相似点与规范效果之间相关性的判断依据。法官可以借助经验法则论证立法理由与事物本质,进而根据法律目的判断相似点的相关性。基于经验法则的法律论证既能回应当下释法说理的需求,也是法律论证理论扎根中国司法土壤的尝试。     

试析经验法则及其在仲裁实务上的应用

一、对经验法则的基本界定经验法则,是指人们通过长期生产、生活以及科学实验形成的对客观外界普遍现象与通常规律的一种理性认识,在观念上它属于不证自明的公认范畴,除非有证据能够充分地证明,经验法则不适用于某一特殊情形,从而形成经验法则的例外规则。实际上,作为一种悖论,凡事都有例外,在许多场合也被人们普遍接受为一种经验法则。经验法则与某一事实真相之间存在着一种逻辑关系和证明关系。由于存在一种定型化的思维模式,在许多情形下,从表象上经验法则几乎等同于某     

如何运用经验法则审查证据排除合理怀疑——以阿杜·艾瑞克诈骗案为例

诈骗罪案件中经常需要审查具有一定证据支持的犯罪嫌疑人辩解,对此我们完全可以运用经验法则通过常识、常理来判断,如果被告人辩解漏洞较多,且在关键事实上与掌握的证据相左,那么就应当运用经验法则排除被告人辩解的合理怀疑。     

事实不证自明-突破医疗损害诉讼证明困境的另一视角

事实不证自明是英美法系用于证明侵权方存在主观过错的证明规则。它的主要作用在于为案件规避诉答排除规则的便利,同时减轻了当事人的证明负担。在医疗纠纷的证明过程中,事实不证自明通过转换证明对象的方法减轻了证明难度,并对因果关系和侵害行为的证明产生间接的影响。我国法律在借鉴这一原则时,应当将其效力界定为一种可以反驳的推定,并适当放宽其适用条件。     

现代场景与基本善的使命——读菲尼斯《自然法与自然权利》

《自然法与自然权利》是菲尼斯的经典代表作。基于对坚持价值中立的描述性社会科学的反思,菲尼斯提出了以基本善为主体的自然法理论。他的基本善包括生命、知识、游戏、社交、美感经验、实践理性、宗教等七个方面。通过设定基本善的不可通约等特征,菲尼斯的自然法理论既承袭了古典思想又应对了现代场景。     

疑难案件中法律判决的证成——基于黄中权案的分析

在法治进程中,疑难案件越来越牵动着民众的正义感与法的认同感。要消除法律效果与社会效果的紧张对立,判断一个法律判决的正当性,就要求法官心中始终秉持正义,依靠严密的法律思维与科学的法律方法在法律规范与案件事实间多次来回穿梭,正确认证事实,准确适用法律。法律适用是一个法律证成的过程。法律证成包括内部证成与外部证成。如果内部证成逻辑缜密,外部证成严格遵守法律规则,法律效果与社会效果和谐,法官依此作出判决,那就是一个正当的法律判决。     

法律责任证成刍论

法官在进行法律责任证成过程中脱离不开对客观因素的考量,这些因素体现为:规范前提、事实前提、法律原则、社会舆论、个人的接受、方式前提。这些要件又分布于内部证成与外部证成之中,必须加以审慎考量.     

指导性案例参照中的类案判断尺度:内部证成与外部证成

内部证成决定了案件审判逻辑结构的正确,外部证成决定了案件逻辑适用前提的正确。对内部证成和外部证成相似性的比较,是确保待决案件与指导性案例存在类似关系的重要前提。一些待决案件与指导性案例虽然在案情方面看起来相似,但在具体法律证成中存在根本差异。由于在本质上没有类案关系,参照指导性案例对这些待决案件做出裁判是错误的,这不仅会导致个案中的司法不公,造成“异案同判”,甚至会破坏整个指导性案例的参照系统。只有当待决案件与指导性案例的内部、外部证成均具有相似性时,才可以在“依法裁判”的基础上,参照指导性案例达到“同案同判”的目的。     

环境权的法律论证——从阿列克西法律论证理论对环境权基本属性的考察

环境权是以公民环境权为重心的复合性的权利。我国现行的环境法律体系中虽然大量存在义务性的规范,但法律属性决定了其必定是以对公民环境权利的保护为出发点和归属。现在学界对环境权的基本属性的认识存在不同观点,甚至认为应否认公民环境权,主张环境法应以义务为重心。从阿列克西法律论证理论中普遍实践论辩理论中的基本规则和论证负担规则以及法律论证中的内部规则与外部规则出发,我们考察出环境权的基本法律属性。     

法律论证理论中的证明证据和证成

法律论证理论是实践论辩理论的一个局域性的论证类型。法律论证的实质是论辩。法律论证中的证明和证据概念强调合法性。法律论证的一个重要概念是证成,它分为内部证成和外部证成两种证成形式,这些证成是由若干规则、公式和原则来构成的,用以在法律论证中获得健全的实践理性。     

How Law Rules: Torture,Terror, and the Normative Judgments of Iraqi Judges

We present a factorial survey experiment conducted with Iraqi judges during the early military occupation of Iraq. Because U.S. soldiers are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts, there is no opportunity for these judges to express their views regarding highly publicized torture cases. As legally informed representatives of an occupied nation, however, Iraqi judges arguably have a strong claim to a normative voice on this sensitive subject. We are able to give voice to these judges in this study by using a quasi‐experimental method. This method diminishes social desirability bias in judges' responses and allows us to consider a broad range and combination of factors influencing their normative judgments. We examine why and how the U.S. effort to introduce democracy with an indeterminate rule of law produced unintended and inconsistent results in the normative judgments of Iraqi judges. A critical legal perspective anticipates the influences of indeterminacy, power, and fear in our research. More specifically, we anticipated lenient treatment for guards convicted of torture, especially in trouble cases of Coalition soldiers torturing al Qaeda prisoners. However, the results—which include cross‐level, judge‐case interaction effects—were more varied than theoretically expected. The Iraqi judges responded in disparate and polarized ways. Some judges imposed more severe sentences on Coalition guards convicted of torturing al Qaeda suspects, while others imposed more lenient sentences on the same combination of guards and suspects. The cross‐level interactions indicate that the judges who severely sentenced Coalition guards likely feared the contribution of torture tactics to increasing violence in Iraq. The judges who were less fearful of violence were more lenient and accommodating of torture by Coalition forces. The implication is that the less fearful judges were freed by an indeterminate law to advance Coalition goals through lenient punishment of torture. Our analysis suggests that the introduction of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq is a negative case in the international diffusion of American institutions. The results indicate the need for further development of a nuanced critical legal perspective.     

有关法官国外培训的实证考察

本文通过对一个法官国外培训项目的实证考察,分析了我国法官培训制度存在的种种问题。本文认为,尽管出国培训对个人和法官整体素质的提高有一定的积极意义,但其作用有限,成本过高、效益过低。本文主张,应该严格限制各种法官培训,尤其是法官国外培训,这样既可以节省资金用于法官的工资、奖金或津贴,提高法官的生活水准,又可以节省法院的人力资源,减少办案压力,提高办案质量;对于确有实际需要的法官培训,应以国家和地方法官学院等培训机构为基础,以法官行为规范、职业道德和业务培训为主要内容进行培训。     

Publish or Paris? Evidence of How Judges Allocate Their Time

A utility-maximizing model of judicial behavior predicts that,all else equal, judges who have stronger preferences for publishingopinions, who have lighter workloads, or who are able to writepublishable decisions more efficiently are more likely to publishtheir decisions. Using federal district court judges' decisionsregarding the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,this article presents empirical support for these predictions.Many judicial, institutional, and other characteristics areexamined that should be correlated with a judge's workload orwith a judge's taste for, or efficiency in, publishing opinions.These analyses find that, all else equal, judges who held priorpolitical positions, who received higher American Bar Association(ABA) ratings, who had lighter caseloads, who had longer tenures,who struck down the guidelines, or who had a greater chanceof promotion to a U.S. court of appeals were more likely topublish their decisions. In addition, judges' publication decisionswere significantly affected by the prior decisions of judgesin the same district, but little affected by those of judgesin other districts.     

如何评价《鹿特丹规则》

《联合国全程或者部分国际海上货物运输合同公约》（简称《鹿特丹规则》）是国际社会为推进国际货物运输法的统一而作的又一次努力。从《鹿特丹规则》的宗旨、研究方法、作用和影响、引发的问题和存在的漏洞着手,结合当前面临的新任务,分析中国应采取的历史态度,并对《鹿特丹规则》给予客观的评价。     

Can Self-Defense Justify Punishment?

This piece is a review essay on Victor Tadros’s The Ends of Harm. Tadros rejects retributive desert but believes punishment can be justified instrumentally without succumbing to the problems of thoroughgoing consequentialism and endorsing using people as means. He believes he can achieve these results through extension of the right of self-defense. I argue that Tadros fails in this endeavor: he has a defective account of the means principle; his rejection of desert leads to gross mismatches of punishment and culpability; and he cannot account for punishment of inchoate crimes.     

孤独的法官与法官的孤独——法官的自主性研究

法官需要孤独,孤独不是寂寞,而是一种凝结了真善美的高贵品质。法官的孤独并不是与这个世界的分离,相反法官的孤独是关注这个世界发展的命运基础上的孤独。正是因为法官把握和感受到了这个世界的整体命运,所以法官的孤独才可能对这个世界产生一种推动的力量。法官的孤独是一种具有高度自主性的美好品德。     

医疗权的伦理辩护

为国家设定建立医疗保障体系和高效优质的医疗服务体系以保障和促进人民健康义务的基本人权是医疗权,而不是健康权.合作抵御包括疾病在内的自然的侵害,是人际社会形成的重要根据.现代医疗服务已经成为一种基本的善,一种人之生命的必需.病人的医疗权是病人对分享社会合作成果的一种期待,这种期待具有伦理的正当性,能够得到伦理的辩护.这种作为正当性期待的医疗权本身又要受限于权利秩序中当时的条件和资源.     

论法官的知识

我国目前正在推进司法活动专门化的进程,受社会的变化、法官与学者的作用以及国家策略等因素的影响,法官的知识也必将发生结构性的变迁。现代社会中法官的知识对法官及社会都会产生重要影响。因此,在法官知识的转型过程中,在关注法律专业知识的同时,不应忽略法官的生活知识及生活理性。     

Judges as legislators

Among the regulatory measures intended to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste is the European Community Regulation concerning the Supervision and Control of Shipments of Waste within, into and out of the European Community, 1993, and it is this Regulation, in particular, that this work intends to treat. In this context, the European Parliament's attempts to counteract the weight of economic argument in favour of the conflicting interests of human health and the environment will be examined. Despite international and European Community regulation, it is submitted that double standards in law and practice are continually applied to the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Emphasis will be placed on both the international and European dilemma of defining hazardous waste.