INTRODUCING PERSPECTIVES IN FAMILY LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

This article provides an editorial introduction to the following three related articles on the growing use and influence of social science research in family law. It first considers why this has become problematic and identifies some common strategies used by advocates, sometimes under the guise of scholarship, to destroy the standing of research findings contrary to their ideological or political position. Then it discusses briefly the remedies proposed to mitigate these kinds of problems within the following three articles.     

法学的本相 兼论法科教育转型

<正>本文重点想要论述法学原本具有的品相,旨在归还法学的本来面目。本文从法学的起源时期的方法、法学研究对象的"三度"、法学的特点等方面人手来分析法学的本相。我们不妨先从法学襁褓时期的法学方法特征来发现一些规律性的问题。一、规范注释法学的源起法学在最初产生的时候,首先登上历史舞台的就是注释法学。我们今天所谓的规范实证法学,或称"教义式法律学",就源于此。它几乎是当代法典法系的主流法学的代名词,德国法学家几乎都是规范实证的法学家,他们的著作也基本上踏着教义式的脚步遵循规范的法律学方法进行法律分析。甚至英美法系的法学也离不开规范实证法学,还有日本甚至我国台湾地     

TOWARD THE DIFFERENTIATION OF HIGH‐CONFLICT FAMILIES: AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND CANADIAN CASE LAW

Social science research and the courts have begun to recognize the special challenges posed by “high‐conflict” separations for children and the justice system. The use of “high conflict” terminology by social science researchers and the courts has increased dramatically over the past decade. This is an important development, but the term is often used vaguely and to characterize very different types of cases. An analysis of Canadian case law reveals that some judges are starting to differentiate between various degrees and types of high conflict. Often this judicial differentiation is implicit and occurs without full articulation of the factors that are taken into account in applying different remedies. There is a need for the development of more refined, explicit analytical concepts for the identification and differentiation of various types of high conflict cases. Empirically driven social science research can assist mental health professionals, lawyers and the courts in better understanding these cases and providing the most appropriate interventions. As a tentative scheme for differentiating cases, we propose distinguishing between high conflict cases where there is: (1) poor communication; (2) domestic violence; and (3) alienation. Further, there must be a differentiation between cases where one parent is a primary instigator for the conflict or abuse, and those where both parents bear significant responsibility.     

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE RULE OF LAW: IS THERE A TRADEOFF?

This essay assesses whether a strong evidence‐based argument can be made to support the proposition that when police violate the rule‐of‐law they do more harm than good with respect to their collective, as well as personal, interests. The assessment is undertaken to counter the common presumption among police officers that circumstances often justify cutting legal corners in the interests of public safety. The essay first examines what research shows about the facilitators of police law breaking. It then examines seven reasons why violating the rule‐of‐law works against the instrumental interests of the police themselves. After assessing the strength of the evidence against the instrumental benefit of violating the rule‐of‐law, suggestions are made about research that is needed to make the case more compelling. In conclusion, the essay discusses how empirical knowledge might be most productively used to change the culture of contemporary policing.     

法律与文学:可能性及其限度

<正>找那不可能的东西,绝望中练一身技艺。——燕卜荪:《最后的痛苦》一、引论法律与文学(Law and Literature)是发源于美国法学院的一场学术运动,并演变成为一个法学流派或者领域。法律是一门历史悠久的学科,然而自1960年代以来,其学科自主性在美国逐渐走向衰落。法律与经济学、社会学、政治学、女权主义、种族理论等交叉学科研究("Law-and")蓬勃兴起,而且硕果累累。四十多年来,法律交叉学科研究中声望最高、影响最大的莫过于如今