信号传递、社会规范与法律——评Eric A.波斯纳的《法律与社会规范》

长期以来,对社会规范的研究并不是法律经济学的重心,人们更关注正式的法律制度.这表现在,当权利交换需要一个初始界定时,当个体理性与集体理性发生冲突时(如囚徒困境[1]、公地悲剧[2]以及其它的集团行动问题[3]),人们更容易想到的是法律,而不是社会规范.     

劳资契约安排的制度逻辑——无固定期限劳动合同的法律经济学重读

无固定期限劳动合同引发了任何规则建构都必须依循其内在制度逻辑这一普适性的法理学命题。基于法律经济学的分析视角,无论是《劳动合同法》还是配套的《实施条例》,无固定期限劳动合同皆无法保护员工的职业稳定权,反而损害了同样值得珍视的就业权,引发了一系列影响就业数量、就业质量的利益再分配效应。缘于人力资本在监督、计量上的技术难度,企业无法就员工是否"不能胜任工作"等常规合同解除条件给出满足可观察、可检验要件的客观证据,无法满足司法治理机制的"外部视角"对于证据可观察、可检验的刚性约束,《劳动合同法》赋予企业的合同解除抗辩权不具有司法操作意义。在劳动力结构性过剩的背景下,以提升劳动者职业技能、降低其可替代性来提高企业解除劳资契约关系的退出成本,应当是更有助于激励企业保持稳定的劳资契约关系、节省执法成本的可行进路。     

The judge,the academic and the public intellectual: the totemic scholarship of Richard A. Posner

Richard A. Posner plays a totemic role within law and economics, and not only. His scholarship is so wide to the point that it is quite impossible to face any topic without finding a seminal contribution by him. This introduction presents a special issue devoted to Posner’s scientific and academic work.     

Nanotechnology in Global Medicine and Human Biosecurity: Private Interests, Policy Dilemmas, and the Calibration of Public Health Law

This paper considers how best to approach dilemmas posed to global health and biosecurity policy by increasing advances in practical applications of nanotechnology. The type of nano-technology policy dilemmas discussed include: (1) expenditure of public funds, (2) public-funded research priorities, (3) public confidence in government and science and, finally, (4) public safety. The article examines the value in this context of a legal obligation that the development of relevant public health law be calibrated against less corporate-influenced norms issuing from bioethics and international human rights.     

Wrong about Rights: Public Knowledge of Key Areas of Consumer,Housing and Employment Law in England and Wales

Over many decades, processes of juridification have brought about huge growth in legal rights, responsibilities and protections, yet citizens appear to poorly understand this ‘law thick’ world. This impacts citizens’ capacity to ‘name, blame and claim’ in the legal domain at a time of retreat from public funding of civil legal services. This article examines public knowledge of rights in key areas relating to consumer, housing and employment law. Drawing on data from the 2010–2012 English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Survey, the article uses responses to a series of hypothetical scenarios to explore public knowledge of rights and characteristics associated with knowledge. Our findings highlight a substantial deficit in individuals’ understanding of legal rights and responsibilities – even among those for whom particular rights and responsibilities have specific bearing. We also consider what these findings mean for public legal education and the efficiency, efficacy and legitimacy of the law.     

辨认笔录证据能力问题研究——以新《刑事诉讼法》为视角

辨认笔录作为新型的证据种类为新《刑事诉讼法》所确认,在辨认程序缺乏立法规制的情况下,如何对其可靠性和合法性进行审查判断成为实践中的难题。两院三部联合制定的《死刑案件证据规定》初步确立了辨认结果的审查判断规则,为法庭审查和采信辨认证据提供了一定的根据。但是,在辨认录像制度、见证人在场制度以及警察出庭作证制度尚未有效确立的情况下,对具有传闻证据性质的辨认笔录采用书面审查的方法仍具有相当大的局限性,不但难以发现辨认过程中存在的程序瑕疵和程序违法问题,而且无法完成对辨认结果可靠性的实质审查任务。本文针对我国侦查实践中常用的列队辨认和照片辨认程序,提出了具体的审查内容和方法,对暗示性辨认提出了具有可操作性的判断规则。对于辨认结果证据能力的认定,可以借鉴美国的总体情况规则,采用可靠性判断标准,对于违反辨认规则获得的辨认结果,并不当然否定其证据能力,当该结果获得了真实性的情况保障时,可以作为定案根据。     

英美刑法处理醉态犯罪的一般原则

醉酒与犯罪有着极为密切的联系。英国有学者认为,英国大部分轻罪都是被告人在醉酒的情况下实施的。据统计,在英国大约有40%的暴力犯罪是行为人在酒精的影响下实施的。①鉴于饮酒与犯罪之间的密切联系,当今社会,一般都会对行为人醉酒后的危害社会行为予以刑罚处罚。然而行为人在实施危害社会行为时,为限制责任能力甚至完全无责任能力人,严格按照现代刑法责任主义的原则,对行为人应该分别减轻、免除处罚或者不追究刑事责任。但是,如何根据责任主义找到醉酒犯罪可罚性的根据,一直颇为困难。大陆刑法理论从原因自由行为的角度探讨行为人的刑事责…     

Richard Mullender,Matteo Nicolini,Thomas D.C. Bennett and Emilia Mickiewicz (eds): Law and Imagination in Troubled Times. A Legal and Literary Discourse

Liverpool Law Review -     

Private Law Firms in the Public Interest: The Organizational and Institutional Determinants of Pro Bono Participation, 1994–2005

Despite longstanding concern that the commercialization of legal practice is antithetical to professionalism, corporate law firms have dramatically increased their pro bono participation over the past few decades. What explains this paradox? This article examines the organizational and institutional determinants of pro bono participation across an elite field of large law firms. I find that pro bono work is only partly rooted in internal organizational dynamics and that the institutional environment appears more important for explaining variation in pro bono participation. These findings indicate that large firms may be more drawn to pro bono work as a social process tied to professional status and legitimacy than to concrete, rational organizational goals. Moreover, these findings point to the importance of the interstitial space that these firms inhabit between the legal profession and corporate market as an especially important factor in facilitating, rather than dampening, pro bono participation.