社会危害性理论——一个反思性检讨

社会危害性理论是我国刑法中的传统理论。本文基于刑事法治的理念 ,理性地审视社会危害性理论 ,认为在注释刑法学中应当坚守形式理性 ,否定社会危害性理论。只有这样才能使罪刑法定原则真正得以实现。     

法·治·与·行·政——德国行政法在法治国背景下的展开

德国现代行政法的建立与发展很大程度上是在法治国背景之下完成的。法治国思想从最初提出之际,就是对国家行为的法律规范要求。在此背景下,奥托.迈耶提出“依法律行政”,并以此为基础建构起德国现代行政法。德国法治国思想其后经历了从自由法治国到社会法治国,以及从形式法治国到实质法治国的演变。作为对社会法治国的回应,给付行政理论开拓了德国行政法的新视野;而形式法治国到实质法治国的演变,则在实质法治观下对德国行政法进行了重新塑造。     

The Place of Form in the Fundamentals of Law

The author explains that there is scope for a general theory about the nature and place of form in the fundamentals of law. Form organizes the institutions, rules and other varieties of law, and the system as a whole. All such constructs have non‐formal elements, too, but form unifies each construct and provides its criteria of identity. Appropriate form makes a system of law possible. It also tends to beget good content in the law. It is indispensable to the basic needs of a legal system, and when such an end is organizational, as with democracy, liberty, and the rule of law, form is end as well as means.     

形式理性的误读、缺失与缺陷--以刑事诉讼为视角

形式理性关注法的周延性和法的权威性,它是法治的必要条件,而非充分条件。我国刑事诉讼法缺失形式理性的基本要素,既没有体现法的周延性,也缺乏法的和谐性,更缺少法的独立性和权威性。在我国实现法治的过程中,要清醒认识到法的形式化缺陷,但当前没有必要刻意地强调这种缺陷。     

法治与人性尊严——从实践到理论的反思

作为现代民主宪政社会不可或缺的生活形态,法治的意义及其核心价值,不论在具体法律实践或抽象理论阐述上,却依然存在着极大争议。"大法官会议"以人性尊严为本的法治观点,毋宁是一种"自由民主宪政秩序"的法治观点。无论是形式合法性或民主程序的法治要件,均无法在法治的具体实践上,保证执政者或立法者不会借助法治的形式要件,来追求满足其政治野心或个人私欲的不正当目的。法治理想的追求,应当着重法律实质内容的道德论证质量。就人性尊严的内涵来说,德沃金提出的两项人性尊严原则,内在价值原则与个人责任原则,确实是值得我们反思借镜的理论资源;特别是,他对人的内在价值的诠释,亦即人具有由自然与人类共同创造的神圣、不可侵犯的客观价值,适足以填补大法官人性尊严观的论述盲点。     

The Rule of Law in Contemporary Liberal Theory*

Abstract. Existing accounts of the Rule of Law are inadequate and require fleshing out. The main value of the ideal of rule of law for liberal political theory lies in the notion of predictability, which is essential to individual autonomy. The author examines this connection and argues that conservative theories of rule of law claim too much. Liberal theory equates the rule of law with legality, which is only one of the elements necessary for a just social order.     

论行政法规范的援用

行政法的援用既是一个行政法的法律产出技术问题,又是一个行政法的法律适用问题,其在行政法治体系和行政法学体系中本应具有非常重要的地位。但令人不解的是该问题在目前行政法学中还是一个理论空白,理论上的不成熟严重制约了其在行政法治实践中的良性化格局。为了使该问题引起学界的关注并对行政法治进程有所助益,本文对行政法援用的若干重大理论和实践困惑作了初步厘清,并构设了行政法不宜隔位援用、行政法规范规制同一事项不宜多次援用、正式法律渊源不宜用非正式的行为规则、实体规范不宜再作实体性援用、程序性规范不宜再作程序性援用等规范化援用的要件,指出了行政法援用走上规范化的若干路径。     

The Juristic Study of Law's Formal Character

Abstract. The author summarizes the essential elements of a general theory he is developing which he calls “The Formal Character of Law.” He explains that law's formal character is a potentially major branch of legal theory that is still relatively unexplored. In his view, it is possible to identify formal attributes in (1) legal rules, (2) other basic legal constructs such as interpretive method, the principles of stare decisis, legal reasons, and legislative and adjudicative processes, and (3) a legal system viewed as a whole. For example, a legal rule has, in varying degrees, such formal attributes as generality, definiteness, and simplicity. (Other constructs have other formal attributes.) Such attributes are formal in the sense that they apply to or accommodate highly variable content and do not prescribe or proscribe content. Of course, legal phenomena have other characteristics besides their formality. The author's main technique for developing his theory is to address a common set of questions to the varied formal attributes of (l), (2), and (3) above. Among other things, the answers to these questions further explicate how law is formal, demonstrate that law is not merely a means of serving problem-specific policy but also serves formal values (which may sometimes trump or limit policy), treats the relations between form and content—specially how good form begets good content and bad form bad content, explores the design and implementation of appropriate formality—its “anatomy and physiology,” and analyses the “pathology” of legal form including not only the “formalistic” (the overformal), but also the “sub-stantivistic,” and shows how the overall theory is important both jurisprudentially and in practical ways.     

先秦法家共同体的敌人:以法治国的规范理论

在揭示现代法治的起源和理念时,先秦法家的观点往往作为对立面而成为历史批判的靶子,我国法学界对"法治"和"法制"、"依法治国"和"以法治国"、"形式的、浅度的法治"和"实质的、深度的法治"等概念所做出的有意区分既加重了对先秦法家的打击,也中断了一种法治思想的文化连续性的思考方案。事实上,先秦法学关于以国为国、以法治国的基本主张开启了实证主义法学的先河,同时也为人的行为的分治理论和共治理论奠定了基础。     

民法法典化的价值、模式与学理

文章首先回答中国为什么需要民法典,民法典的价值理性和形式理性为其提供了存在上的正当性;其次探讨了中国民法法典化的模式,指出应以德国五编制为基础;最后提出了中国民法法典化的学术条件,成熟的学理研究是法典化的理论背景;同时作者还指出,民法典作为塑造世俗生活的根本规范,其功能极其有限,我们不应寄予民法典过大的希望。     

The Rule of Law and Its Predicament

Abstract.  The purpose of this paper is to assess the validity of the Razian conception of the rule of law by subjecting it to the acid test of Michel Troper's "realist theory of interpretation." The author argues that, in light of the Wittgensteinian view of rule-following, a serious indeterminacy can be seen as inherent in both this conception of the rule of law and Troper's theory of interpretation.     

空白刑法规范的罪刑法定机能——以现代法治国家为背景的分析

现代法治国家兼具自由法治国与社会法治国、形式法治国与实质法治国的双重性格,这导致现代行政法的使命由单一阻止行政权的扩大化到兼而具有改善国民经济生活以完成福利国家的任务。受此影响,许多国家突破了以往在刑法体系中只规定自然犯的传统框架,越来越多地在刑法中通过空白刑法规范的方式规定行政犯。用法治国的罪刑法定主义衡量,空白刑法规范既符合罪刑法定主义的民主法治原则和法律专属性原则,同时也是罪刑法定主义之明确性原则的体现和运用,是与现代法治国思想及罪刑法定原则相一致的一种刑法立法模式。     

陪审在现代法治社会中的功能--以形式合理性为中心的若干思考

法治及其形式合理性有着先天的局限性,法律适用过程中不可避免地会遭遇到各种"困难案件".陪审团在审判过程中的职能包括在认定事实的基础上适用法律,在适用法律的过程中贯彻社会价值观念、修正法律规则.陪审团在困难案件的审理中具有维护、修改、补充和促进形式合理性的法的作用.在法治社会中,法官依照形式合理性的法断案是一条准则,但困难案件的审理作为一种例外,应当有陪审团参与审判.     

“社会主义法治国家”的名与实——以现行宪法文本为分析路径

实现一种以应然性价值共识为指导,再返回到实然性的规范宪法主义,从而为当前政治治理的正当性提供证立与阐释,是规范宪法学研究的生命力所在。从世界范围来看,法治国概念经历了从形式法治国到实质法治国的演变。"社会主义法治国家"的概念,兼具形式法治国和实质法治国的内涵。从形式上看,包含"社会主义"、"法治"、"国家"三个要素。"社会主义法治国家"概念统合下的规范实质,仍然体现普遍法治的基本要义,须强调法治与宪法、人权的内在关系。站在规范宪法学的基本立场,对宪法文本相关条款进行规范分析,有利于为当下法治建设与国家发展提供规范依据。     

法治视野下公务员的言论自由探析

言论自由是一项基本人权,但作为公务员这一特殊群体,其言论自由与一般公民的言论自由相比具有特殊之处。随着我国民主法治进程的不断加快,在法治视野下如何对公务员的言论自由进行科学规制逐渐引起重视。民主法治国家要求公务员的言论自由既要受到宪法和法律的保障也要受到一定的限制。笔者认为法治视野下公务员言论自由的行使应受到公务员与所在机关的法律关系、公务员忠诚义务、公务员中立义务等因素的限制。同时对公务员言论自由的限制理应符合比例原则、双阶理论和双轨理论等标准的约束。     

实质的刑法解释论之确立与展开

在刑法的解释与适用上,存在着形式的刑法解释论与实质的刑法解释论之争。形式的刑法解释论主张对刑罚法规进行字面的、形式的、逻辑的解释,实质的刑法解释论主张对刑罚法规进行实质的、价值的、合目的的解释。实质的刑法解释论是对形式的刑法解释论的扬弃,它不仅与刑法规范的特点、结构、内容相一致,具有方法论意义上的合理性,而且满足了我国刑事法治目标与罪刑法定原则兼具形式侧面与实质侧面的要求,适应了我国犯罪概念与犯罪构成体系形式与实质相统一的特点,具有优越的合理性。我国刑法应确立与贯彻实质的刑法解释论立场。     

严格依法办事：经由形式正义的实质法治观

依法办事理念作为法治公信力建设的关键所在,应当受到认真对待,在解释学的阐述下,其将展现出全新的、非简单化的意蕴。在严格依法办事的主体上,应在执法者、司法者之外增加公民与其他社会主体,并坚持一种“交互主体性”的法律实施观。在严格依法办事的过程中,应把握好严格规则主义与法律解释、法律效果与社会效果、形式正义与实质正义的关系,并创新法律实施机制。在严格依法办事的对象上,应处理好“恶法”实施问题及法律体系与体系外规范的关系,并开展依法治法、法典化运动,重点解决有法难依问题。严格依法办事的良性运作需要我们在法治现实主义的引导下,坚持良法之治,走一条“经由形式正义的实质法治”之路。     

司法过程中的法律发现

司法过程中的法律发现是法学方法论的重要组成部分，它研究的是法官面对个案理解、解释、适用法律的过程。在这一过程中，法官应表达对法律的忠诚并根据案件事实衡平个别正义。法官之所以在司法过程中发现法律，乃是因为法律适用就是法律解释，没有法官对法律和事实的理解，就不可能有法律适用。依照法治原则，发现法律首先应从法律正式法源中去寻找，只有当正式法源中没有明确标准或虽有标准但该标准与个案正义严重背离时，才在非正式法源中寻找可以接受的答案。     

社会危害性理论：进一步的批判性清理

社会危害性理论是苏联刑法学的遗产之一,它至今仍在我国刑法学上占据着统治地位。基于罪刑法定原则,本文对社会危害性理论作了进一步的批判性清理。本文对社会危害性的形成史进行了历史考察,对犯罪概念,包括形式概念、实质概念与混合概念进行了法理辨正,指出了社会危害性与刑事违法性之间的相悖性,由此形成犯罪认定中犯罪构成的形式判断与社会危害性的实质判断之间的对立性,并对犯罪构成体系中的社会危害性观念作了评析。     

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.