What's Law Got To Do With it? How and Why Law Matters in the Regulation of Sex Work

Drawing on recent empirical work that considers the relationship between different legal approaches to the 'problem' of prostitution, this article argues that the frequently drawn distinction between apparently diametrically opposed positions, such as prohibitionism and legalization, is certainly less significant than is often assumed and may, in fact, be illusory. This lack of distinction raises serious questions as to law's role in regulating sex work. In response to claims that law is 'merely' symbolic in its influence, I argue that these similarities arise precisely because law does matter (albeit in a different way from that assumed by a sovereign-centred understanding of the legal complex), and offer a complex and critical account of the role of modern law in regulating sex work. This approach not only more accurately elucidates the ways in which law supports dominant structures, in this case neo-liberalism, but offers some optimism for its (albeit limited) potential to transform.     

Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited

This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal reasoning that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them.     

法理即法律原理之解说

自清末民初以来,将法理解说为法律原理就成为法学界的通例,但其界定方式则有四种:一是径直以法律原理定位法理;二是将法律原理、法律原则并列来定位法理;三是将法理视为由法律原理推导出的法律一般原则;四是认为法理是指法律原则,但包括法律原理在内。法理和法律原理的存在是一种客观的必然:世上的万事万物都应有其存在和运行的原理,法律自然也不例外;法律作为人类的伟大创造,自身即蕴含着追求正义等法律价值的法理;法律的价值观念虽因时代、地区的不同而会有所差异,但其中的基础法理却不受时空影响;对法律的分析和研究舍法理之外别无他途。立足于已有的研究成果,可将法理界定为"在综合各种法律现象的基础上,由学者所抽象并为社会所认同的有关法律基础、法律根据、法律判准、法律渊源的基础性、普遍性原理"。同时,法理与自然规律、社会价值、内存于法典和单行法律中的法律原则以及事理、情理等存在明显的差异,不可混淆。     

法律人思维中的规范隐退

在法学出现了各种流派以后,有一个重要现象值得法治论者去研究。这就是除了教义学属性的法律解释学以及分析实证主义法学以外,多数法学流派的主要观点都是对现行法律规范的效力进行程度不同的消解、修正、甚至废止。这一方面丰富了法学研究的内容,使人们更全面地理解法律,但另一方面也从不同的角度挑战了法律甚至法治的权威。对此,法治论者必须正视。在很多法学流派中,由于带有教义学属性的法律解释学的基本观点被批判,尤其是后现代法学对法治基本原则的解构,使我们感觉到,法律人的思维(包括法学研究)中出现了规范的失落或者说法律的隐退。本文分析了在法律决断论和主体选择论的矛盾下,法律规范的尴尬地位、规范隐退的表现、原因以及拯救的姿态与理路,所蕴涵的问题意识在于批判能动司法的理论基础。     

论刑法的公众认同

保持刑法与市民感觉、国民规范意识之间的一致性 ,以保持刑法的亲和力 ,并使之获得公众对刑法的认同感 ,在我国是一个比较突出的问题。刑法理论在因果关系、不作为犯、违法论、故意、共犯、责任论等问题上都充分考虑了公众认同感问题。公众对刑法的认同包括对“生活利益的重要性”和“规范有效性”的认同两个方面。作者进一步指出 ,今后我国刑法理论与实践要更多地考虑公众认同 ,就必须注意三方面的问题 :理论总体思路的调整 ;在具体问题上的理论创新和反思 ;鼓励市民介入刑事司法裁判过程。     

Gazing into the Future through a VDU: Communications, Information Technology, and Law Teaching

The article deals with the interaction of computers, informationtechnology, and legal education. It considers the technical achievementsof communications and information technology (C&IT) in the practiceand teaching of law, then the jurisprudential paradigms which underliethese issues. To the extent to which law is conceived as a form ofinformation, existing assumptions about the theory, practice, andteaching of law are challenged. Where, on the other hand, law is regardedas a collection of rules, reversal to formalism, driven by C&IT, isidentified as a concern for socio-legal scholars. Other concerns addressedby this article include the exclusive economics of the C&IT revolution,the power dynamics of technophobia, and the interaction of computersand gender. The article concludes with suggestions for alternative visonsof the future of C&IT and legal education.     

An Interpretation of Max Weber's Theory of Law: Metaphysics, Economics, and the Iron Cage of Constitutional Law

Among legal scholars, Anthony T. Kronman and David M. Trubek have provided the leading interpretations of Weber's theory of law. Kronman and Trubek agree on two important points: Weber's theory is fundamentally contradictory, and Weber's theory relates primarily to private law subjects such as contracts. This article contests both of these points. Building on a foundation of Weber's neo-Kantian metaphysics and his sociological categories of economic action, this article shows that Weber's theory of law is not fundamentally inconsistent; rather it explores the inconsistencies that are inherent within Western society itself, including its legal systems. Furthermore, Weber's insights can be applied to modern constitutional jurisprudence. Weberian theory reveals that modern constitutional law is riddled with irreconcilable tensions between process and substance—between formal and substantive rationality. In the context of racial discrimination cases involving equal protection and the Fifteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court's acceptance of John Hart Ely's theory of representation-reinforcement demonstrates the Court's resolute pursuit of formal rationality, which insures that the substantive values and needs of minorities will remain unsatisfied.     

新刑法与法益侵害说

本文的基本观点是 :刑法目的是保护法益、犯罪本质是侵犯法益。本文论述了法益侵害说及其与规范违反说的区别 ;论证新刑法采取了法益侵害说以及法益侵害说的合理性 ;剖析了有悖法益保护目的现象 ,并提倡全面贯彻法益侵害说。     

The Legal Profession as a Social Process: A Theory on Lawyers and Globalization

This article proposes a processual theory of the legal profession. In contrast to the structural, interactional, and collective action approaches, this processual theory conceptualizes the legal profession as a social process that changes over space and time. The social process of the legal profession includes four components: (1) diagnostic struggles over professional expertise; (2) boundary work over professional jurisdictions; (3) migration across geographical areas and status hierarchies; and (4) exchange between professions and the state. Building on the processual theory and using China as a primary example, the author proposes a research agenda for studying lawyers and globalization that seeks to shift the focus of research from the legal elite to ordinary law practitioners, from global law firms to local law firms, and from advanced economies to emerging economies.     

个体主义方法论和我国法人制度

私法自治是民法的理念,决定了民法理论体系的构建和制度生成。民法的理念决定了民法理论体系的立场是个人主义。私法中所坚持的是个人主义立场,因此决定了个体主义方法论是民法的基本研究方法。自然人与法人是最重要的民事主体类型,是民事主体制度的重要内容。法人是一个组织,但其行为需要由法人机关实施,因此如何合理设计法人法律制度,促使法人内部团体意志有效形成并通过法人机关实现,与第三人实施法律行为参与法律交往,实现法人的利益,同时能够有效约束法人机关,防止其利用代表权谋取私利损害法人的利益,对促进民法体系的完善与成熟,意义重大。本文从个体主义方法论的视角对我国《民法通则》中有关法人人格、法人分类、法人机关等法律制度进行评析并提出完善建议。     

The Concept of Jurisprudence*

Abstract. The first part of this article contains (i) considerations as to the relationship between jurisprudence and legal dogmatics, legal philosophy, and sociology of law; (ii) considerations about the status of jurisprudence both as a meta- and an object-theory. These lead to the suggestion that jurisprudence should be defined as a general juristic theory of law and legal science. In the second part, the character and elements of this definition are explained systematically. The article's main thesis is that jurisprudence is not distinguished from legal philosophy and sociology of law by its subject or its method, but by the specifically juristic research aspect or perspective it is based upon.     

About the Meaning of the Legal Aspect of Practical Semantics in Estonian Legal Order

This article is aimed at regarding, from the author’s viewpoint, one possible jurisprudential theory for rational understanding of legal order – the structuring theory of law. It is very important that cognition of a legal order should be based on the rules which could be designated as “laws of jurisprudence”. Naturally, this does not mean legislation within the concept of objective law. Rather, these laws can be referred to as certain regularities, ignorance of which would, however, either impossibly or substantially complicate the legal process of decision-making, both in law-making (as the so-called decisional function is contained in law itself¹) or the practical legal process of making decisions (the application of law). In recent years, a conception involving cooperation between linguists and jurists has emerged in the discussion of jurisprudential methodology. This constitutes an interdisciplinary approach to motivation of legal decision-making and involves, on the one hand, “practical semantics” and researchers thereof,² and on the other hand, representatives of the so-called structuring theory of law.³ In specialist literature, the structuring theory of law has also been referred to as the Müller Schoo1.⁴ The role of language and linguistic arguments in the discussion and practice of legal working methods serves as a connective principle in such interdisciplinary approach (co-operation).     

The Traditionality of Statutes*

Abstract. The author begins by sketching the characteristics or elements of every tradition. Some reasons are then suggested for the propensity of so many authors to contrast statutes with other, allegedly more traditional kinds of law. However, it is argued that statutes are deeply embedded, along with customary and judge-made law, in the highly traditional practices of law and that this matters much more than is commonly suspected. The thesis being defended here is not merely that law includes traditions along with rules, principles, maxims, and so on, but rather that legal systems should be understood as traditions, albeit highly complex ones. Not only are ancient legal systems (the Talmudic, for example) held to be traditional; modem legal positive orders are viewed as being traditional too. Finally, the concept of “communities of interpretation” is applied to the contemporary posited statutes which are believed by many to be a distinguishing feature of modem legal systems.     

Using Systems Theory to Study Legal Pluralism: What Could Be Gained?

This article examines the ability of modern systems theory to provide a foundation for understanding the problematic notion of legal pluralism, and to the ability of scholars to apply that understanding to engage in the study of pluralistic legal orders. In particular, it develops the observations of systems theory of the relationship between state law and violence by adopting one of its linked ideas, that of structural coupling. It also considers the role played by translation when law is identified by reference to the application of the legal code: legal/illegal. The whole analysis is underpinned by systems theory's account of the differences between studying premodern and modern societies.     

民法上“法益”概念的探源与本土化

《民法总则》第126条中的"利益",与我国民法学界持者甚众的狭义法益说中的"法益"含义大致相同,指的是权利之外应当受到法律保护的客体,是立法者为解决其预见性不足的弹性规范设计。上述界定与"法益"概念的原意不符,和刑法学界的惯常用法存在明显差别,属于概念移植过程中的本土化改造。"民事权利和利益"的二分法和狭义法益说在法理、逻辑上都不能成立,也不具备法益理论应当具备的分类、区分保护和评价功能,必然会造成立法表述与司法裁判说理中的冲突。"法益"概念的本土化界定,应当建立在共识的基础上,寻求统一的、适用于包括刑法、民法等在内的各个部门法的"法益"概念。"法益"是应当受到法保护的利益,此处的法既包括实然意义上的法律,也包括应然意义上的法。法益是权利的上位而非平行概念,《民法总则》第126条中的"利益"实质上是未被立法明文规定的未上升为权利的法益,未来修法时应将该条修改为"民事主体享有其他民事权利和未上升为权利的法益"。     

European Law and International Regimes: The Features of Law Beyond the Nation State

Different forms of law are perceived of as possessing differing degrees of legal quality. A quality continuum suggests itself, running from 'high quality' national law, through to 'lesser quality' European law and to 'low quality' international law. This article seeks to explain the perceived differences in the quality of these laws with reference to legal theoretical perceptions of what it is that constitutes the law's quality. It argues that only a theory of law which identifies the core of the law's integrity as lying in its ability to act as a fulcrum between spheres of social and public discourse and the exercise of power can fully explain the divergence in legal quality between national, European and international law. With specific regard to the quality of European law, it concludes by arguing that it is weakened by its relative lack of social internalisation—in comparison with a higher degree of legal and political internalisation—within the European public.     

Critical Autopoiesis and the Materiality of Law

Autopoietic theory is increasingly seen as a candidate for a radical theory of law, both in relation to its theoretical credentials and its relevance in terms of new and emerging forms of law. An aspect of the theory that has remained less developed, however, is its material side, and more concretely the theory’s accommodation of bodies, space, objects and their claim to legal agency. The present article reads Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic systems in a radical and material manner, linking it on the one hand to current post-structural theorisations of law and society, and on the other hand extending its ambit to accommodate the influx of material considerations that have been working their way through various other disciplines. The latter comprises both a materialisation of the theory itself and ways of conceptualising the legal system as material through and through. This I do by further developing what I have called Critical Autopoiesis, namely an acentric, topological, post-ecological and posthuman understanding of Luhmann’s theory, that draws on Deleuzian thought, feminist theory, geography, non-representational theory, and new material and object-oriented ontologies. These are combined with some well-rehearsed autopoietic concepts, such as distinction, environment and boundaries; Luhmann’s earlier work on materiality continuum; more recent work on bodies and space; as well as his work on form and medium in relation to art. The article concludes with five suggestions for an understanding of what critical autopoietic materiality might mean for law.     

Legal Compliance in Street‐Level Bureaucracy: A Study of UK Housing Officers

Street‐level bureaucratic theory is now at a fairly mature stage. The focus on street‐level bureaucrats as ultimate policymakers is now as familiar as it is important. Likewise, the parallel sociolegal study of the implementation of public law in public organizations has demonstrated the inevitable gap between law‐in‐the‐books and law‐in‐action. Yet, the success of these advances comes at the potential cost of us losing sight of the importance of law itself. This article analyzes some empirical data on the decision making about one legal concept—vulnerability in UK homelessness law. Our analysis offers two main contributions. First, we argue that, when it comes to the implementation of law, the legal abilities and propensities of the bureaucrats must be taken into account. Bureaucrats' abilities to understand legal materials make a difference to the likelihood of legal compliance. Second, we must also pay attention to the character of the legal provisions. Where a provision is simple, it is more likely to facilitate legal knowledge and demands nothing of bureaucrats in terms of legal competence. Where the provision is also inoffensive and liveable, it is less likely to act as an impediment to legal conscientiousness.     

公平贸易中的补贴、反补贴与竞争

规范补贴和反补贴问题的反补贴法被视为了公平贸易政策在国际贸易领域的一大体现。通过对补贴、反补贴与竞争的法律分析,剖析反补贴法与竞争法的区别与联系,指出了反补贴法在维护公平竞争中存在的法律价值,提出作为反补贴法理论基础的公平贸易政策之价值思考。