刑法与民法之间的交错

刑法与民法在调整对象、规范、行为、法律责任上存在较多交叉、竞合之处。处理刑法与民法交错问题要有刑法与民法关联思维,对其进行整体性、交互式思考。要注意民法的前置分析,尤其是在刑法与民法之间具有规范效应的情形下更是如此。要提倡目的解释。     

Laws and Universality,Laws and History

The article begins by examining two arguments used by Derrida in work published in 1967. The first claims against Lévi-Strauss that an empirical pattern of events cannot be injected into or superimposed onto an historical pattern claiming universality, for then there can be no disconfirmation of what is said. (This argument is used against Marxian history by some who write in the wake of Existentialism, Paul Roubiczek for instance.) The second claims against Foucault that he does not distinguish between reason as part of thinking and language and reason as an empirical historical structure capable of modification along time. The article then discusses the use of very similar if not identical arguments in Derrida’s much more recent work on laws, Force of law. The intelligibility, the interpretability, of laws and their history comes after the laws, not before, and is thus not fully universalisable.     

Secret Laws

There is a thesis that legal rules need to be made public because people cannot guide their conduct by rules they cannot know. This thesis has been a mainstay of anti‐positivism and the controversy over it continues apace. However, positivism can accommodate the secret laws thesis. The deeper import of the debate over secret laws concerns our understanding of law's nature. In this regard secrecy merits attention as a candidate necessary connection between law and immorality. In addition the mediating role of lawyers as experts in ascertaining the law should be highlighted. It has been widely overlooked despite the fact that lawyers are criterial in Hart's concept of law.     

当代中国法律对习惯的认可

习惯法为当代中国正式的法律渊源,当代中国宪法、法律、行政法规、地方性法规、民族区域自治法规、政府部门规章、中国缔结和参加的国际条约中都对习惯进行了认可,赋予习惯以法律地位,确认了习惯法在我国正式法律渊源中次要、补充的法律渊源地位。我国法律、法规认可的习惯的内容比较广泛,包括民族习惯、地方习惯、物权习惯、商事习惯、婚姻习惯、家庭习惯、继承习惯、丧葬习惯、生活习惯、宗教习惯、国际惯例等。当代中国法律对习惯认可的变化代表了一种“为生活而立法”的新的立法理念。     

Legislative Intent in Law's Empire*

This article considers Dworkin's influential argument against legislative intent in chapter 9 of Law's Empire. The argument proves much less than is often assumed for it fails to address the possibility that the institution of the legislature may form and act on intentions. Indeed, analysis of Dworkin's argument lends support to that possibility. Dworkin aims to refute legislative intent in order to elucidate his own theory of statutory interpretation. That theory fails to explain plausibly legislative action. Dworkin's argument does not refute legislative intent but instead suggests there is reason to think that the legislature is capable of intentional action.     

法律法规

中华人民共和国全国人民代表大会常务委员会颁布的法律 《全国人大常委会关于加强反恐怖工作有关问题的决定》（2011年10月29日公布 自公布之日起施行）     

法律法規

中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會常務委員會頒佈的法律《全國人大常委會關於召開第十二屆全國人民代表大會第一次會議的決定》(2012年12月28日第十一屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會第三十次會議通過並頒佈)《中華人民共和國證券投資基金法》(2012年12月28日中華人民共和國第十一屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會第三十次會議修訂通過2012年12月28日中華人民共和國主席令第七十一號公佈自2013年6月1日起施行)     

法律法規

中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會常務委員會頒佈的法律《中華人民共和國水土保持法》(1991年6月29日第七屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會第二十次會議通過2010年12月25日中華人民共和國第十一屆全國人民代表大會常務委員     

法律法规

中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會常務委員會頒佈的法律 《中華人民共和國出境入境管理法》（2012年6月30日中華人民共和國第十一屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會第二十七次會議通過2012年6月30日中華人民共和國主席令第57號公佈自2013年7月1日起施行）     

法律法规

《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改（中华人民共和国建筑法）的决定》（2011年4月22日中华人民共和国第十一届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十次会议通过2011年4月22日中华人民共和国主席令第四十六号公布自2011年7月1日起施行）     

认识经验法则

人们对事物的判断离不开经验法则,在诉讼中,当事人的证明和法官的事实认定也同样离不开经验法则.在司法实践中,我们应当如何判断经验法则、正确运用经验法则,以及违反或错误适用经验法则应当产生何种法律后果是一系列值得深入研究的问题.本文对这些问题进行了探讨,以加深对经验法则的认识,更好地把握经验法则.     

The Normality of the Exception in Democracy's Empire

The motif is one of inversion. In its received mode, the exception – the exceptional decision suspending the normal legal order – generates both the sovereign and the law. Here, on the contrary, the exception is found to be of the 'normal' law and, thus endowed, law goes to constitute the sovereign. This normality of the exception is then matched with the sovereign claim of democracy's empire. That empire is thence shown to have an oxymoronic quality, democracy and its constituent law being conducive to empire yet ultimately opposed to it. The empire of the United States of America provides a 'case'.     

Empire and the business of health insurance.

I examine the development of privately provided insurance since World War II, giving special attention to Empire Blue Cross, and argue that the competition between employers and unions for the loyalty of workers after the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act helped diffuse private health insurance benefits already favored by federal policies. For-profit insurers did not challenge the privileged status of Blue Cross plans because they recognized the political benefits that the plans offered and because they did not wish to offend the plans' sponsors. A relatively easy and profitable business, health insurance has been greatly disturbed by the system inflation accompanying the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid programs. Now self-insurance and various managed-care schemes are major threats. The future may bring consolidation and the strengthening of pools, just the opposite of today's system fragmentation.     

警惕执法者规避法律

行政许可法实施已经半年有余,轰轰烈烈的宣传归于沉寂,行政机关也由开始的紧张焦虑变得轻松坦然了,老百姓与政府的许可官司虽偶有发生,但并没有像当初人们担心的那样,出现爆发和激增的情形,这与行政许可法颁布之初人们的预测形成强烈反差.     

Vice Laws and Self-Sovereignty

There is an important moral difference between laws that criminalize drugs and prostitution and laws that make them illegal in other ways: criminalization violates our moral rights in a way that nonlegalization does not. Criminalization is defined as follows. Drugs are criminalized when there are criminal penalties for using or possessing small quantities of drugs. Prostitution is criminalized when there are criminal penalties for selling sex. Legalization is defined as follows. Drugs are legalized when there are no criminal penalties for manufacturing, selling and possessing large quantities of drugs. Prostitution is legalized when there are no criminal penalties for owning or operating a brothel or escort service, no criminal penalties for working as a paid agent for sex work, and no criminal penalties for paying someone for sex who is above the age of legal employment and sexual consent. The criminalization of drugs and prostitution violate the right of self-sovereignty in depriving individuals of important forms of control over their own minds and bodies, but nonlegalization does not violate this right. It is therefore consistent, as a matter of principle, to advocate decriminalization but to oppose legalization.