公证事项证成探析

公证事项的证成就是对公证事项的真实性、合法性予以证明，并为出具公证文书这一决定提供充足、真实的理由、合法依据的活动或过程。《公证法》第二条规定：“公证是公证机构根据自然人、法人或者其他组织的申请，依照法律程序对民事法律行为、有法律意义的事实和文书的真实性、合法性予以证明的活动。”从这条法律条文对公证所下的定义，可以看出法律对公证事项的真实性和合法性的要求，     

民法的两种伦理正当性的模式——读徐涤宇《原因理论研究》

<正>一、生活世界与知识形态徐涤宇博士的《原因理论研究》一书是汉语法学著述中第一本以原因理论作为研究对象的专著。在我看来,其首要的价值并不在于它系统地“填补”了中国民法学在原因理论上的知识缺漏,而在于它代表了推动中国民法学知识转型的一种努力。中国社会由传统社会向现代社会的转变,催生了社会生活对法律规则的迫切需求。变化了的生活世界对法学提出的首要需求是尽快地形成一个相对完整的法律规则体系。这一需求在民事生活领域体现尤其明显。1992年以后,随着“建立适应社会主义市场经济的法律体系”任务的提出,民法学界关注的中心基本上锁定在重要民事法律立法问题的研究上。先是《合同法》的起草,然后是《物权法》的起草和更加广泛的民法典的编纂。十多年来,立法论的研究,成为民法理论研究的绝对主流。同时,由于中国民法体系的继受法特征,立法论的研究范式在很多情况下表现为对国外法律制度的介绍以及对该制度     

从司法民主性看人民监督员制度的正当性

司法民主性体现在司法过程中的很多方面。司法的民主性和司法的权威性一样是司法的本质属性之一,不应该于司法权威性的巨大光环下黯然失色。检察权作为具有司法属性的权力,其运作过程也要受到司法民主性的约束,体现司法民主性的要求。人民监督员制度就是检察权运作过程中司法民主性的重要体现。用司法民主性可以为人民监督员制度构筑起正当性基础。     

论现场公证制度若干误区——反思“西安碑林假公证书事件”

一、公证制度问题的暴露近来,通过有关媒体和官方临时成立的调查机构对于“西安体育彩票丑闻”的一系列追踪调查,西安市“碑林区公证处假公证书事件”被迫浮出水面,于是,中国公证制度遭遇到了来自社会各界前所未有的各种质疑:公证机构为何会作虚假公证文书?公证员为何胆大妄为?     

Soldiers as Public Officials: A Moral Justification for Combatant Immunity

How can we make moral sense of the international humanitarian law doctrine of combatant immunity? The doctrine is morally shocking to many: It holds soldiers on both sides of a war immune from criminal prosecution for their otherwise criminal acts of killing, maiming, destroying property, etc., carried out as part of their country's war effort. That is, soldiers who kill as part of an attack benefit from the immunity just as much as those defending their country. Traditionally, just war theorists have tried to provide situation‐specific arguments to show that soldiers on both sides had a good moral justification for their actions. Recently, self‐styled “revisionist just war theorists” have suggested that the doctrine of combatant immunity is just a convention designed to minimize harm. In this article, I suggest that the moral foundation of the doctrine lies in the status of soldiers as public officials in the service of their country. The reason why we hold them immune from prosecution for their war‐making acts is that such acts are properly thought of as acts of a state, rather than as acts of a particular individual. And the reason why states are immune from prosecution for their acts is one of moral standing: No other state has the moral standing to tell another how to carry out the matters that define its jurisdiction. So as long as a country deems (however implausibly) that it must use force to defend itself from aggression, then it may do what is required to defend itself. No other state has the standing to prohibit such acts or to punish those who carry them out. This argument is rooted in an understanding of how individuals may interact as free and equal under law. It does not aim at the perfection of human action, but it does serve to eliminate the worst forms of tyranny.     

公共领域视野下知识产权制度之正当性

知识产权制度之正当性在于其能够有效地促进知识的学习和传播,激励创新,从而增加社会福利。知识产权劳动价值论、激励论、对价论等均蕴含着公共领域保留的理念。公共领域保留能够促进知识的创造、传播与学习,促进创新驱动发展有益循环。过高保护水平的知识产权制度对公共领域是一种侵蚀,不仅不利于知识产品的私人利益与公共利益的平衡,反而会增加知识传播的成本,不利于可持续创新的实现。知识产权公共领域保留需要在立法中明确表明,以结合知识产权私权保护规范共同实现知识产权立法目的。公共领域保留也是知识产权司法实践中有效保护知识产权的重要方面。     

Trusts for Religious Purposes and the Question of Public Benefit

It is a well‐established principle that no trust may be regarded as charitable in law unless carrying out its purposes will benefit the public. Trusts for religious purposes have traditionally been presumed by courts to be for the public benefit. However, the presumption of public benefit will be removed from the law in early 2008 when section 3(2) of the Charities Act 2006 comes into force. At that time, two questions are likely to attract interest. First, to what extent, and in what ways, has the application of a presumption of public benefit assisted courts up to now? Secondly, without the assistance of the presumption, how might courts go about ascertaining whether the public will benefit in future cases? The article takes up these two questions with respect to trusts for religious purposes.     

边境地区突出治安问题的原因分析

我国是一个具有漫长陆地边界线和海岸线的国家,而漫长的边界线和海岸线则使得我国成为一个具有广阔边境地区的国家,又由于边境地区是国家安全的外层屏障,因此边境地区的安全与整个国家的安全息息相关,特别是边境地区的治安形势与整个国家的稳定紧密相关.随着边境地区对内对外交往的不断加强,边民所面对的诱惑增多,各种不良因素涌入边境地区,因此边境地区突出治安问题日益突出.本文试图从原因论、地缘、社会经济、政治及文化的角度来分析边境地区突出治安问题产生的原因.     

Religious Reasons in Politics: Some Problems for the Free Marketplace Model

Law and Philosophy - In this paper, I critique a popular yet seldom recognized theory of the political role of religious reasons. According to this theory, the Free Marketplace model, laws may be...     

Judicial Evaluation of Religious Belief and the Accessibility Requirement in Public Reason

Many theories of liberal public reason exclude claims derived from religion on grounds that religious beliefs are not publicly ‘accessible’, because they are not amenable to meaningful evaluation by outsiders to the faith. Some authors, though, have argued that at least some religious beliefs are, in fact, publicly accessible. This paper examines the consequences of these arguments by exploring the accessibility requirement in relation to U.S. judicial precedent concerning religious accommodation. I first show that precedent accords de facto with the accessibility requirement by precluding judicial evaluation of the content of religious beliefs. I then show that this norm is independent of the status of religious claims vis-à-vis accessibility: even granting the accessibility of religious beliefs, other important political ends weigh against judicial evaluation of the content of those beliefs. I then generalize this conclusion to the broader enterprise of public reason, suggesting the general inadequacy of the accessibility requirement.     

公益型行政垄断初探

行政垄断曾一度被人们口诛笔伐,其实只有私利型行政垄断才应该被人痛恨。行政垄断可以划分为公益型行政垄断和私利型行政垄断,通过行政权限制竞争以维护社会公共利益为宗旨的行政垄断是公益型行政垄断,而滥用行政权,与公权目标相背离,旨在谋求个人或集团(地区和行业也是私的表现)利益的行政垄断是私利型行政垄断。公益型行政垄断在我国不但具备现实的经济基础,而且具有深厚的政治和法律基础;公益型行政垄断在我国的经济增长、价格稳定、国际贸易等方面都发挥着积极作用。     

民族社会纠纷解决中宗教因素的实证分析

以建立多元化纠纷解决机制,应对诉讼爆炸带来的司法危机的学术活动和实务探讨眼下正在如火如荼地进行。在此背景下,一度被藐视的传统因素如民间权威力量、民间规范受到了青睐。本文试图对宗教在少数民族社会纠纷解决中的作用予以初步描述、分析和归纳。     

Religious Freedom and Religious Antidiscrimination

This article develops a theoretical framework that prompts a new understanding of the role of religious freedom and religious antidiscrimination in human rights law. Proceeding from the prevailing theoretical and doctrinal uncertainty over the relationship between the two rights, which are currently seen as either synonymous or as distinct and in competition, the article develops an account of the moral right to ethical independence and argues that religious freedom and religious antidiscrimination share their main normative basis on that moral right. However, religious freedom and religious antidiscrimination have different emphasis, and both are essential to secure fair background circumstances for the pursuit of different individual plans of life. The proposed framework illuminates the relationship of individual and collective aspects of religious freedom with discrimination law. The analysis has crucial implications for human rights interpretation in cases involving state interference with liberty, in relation to religion or belief, and more broadly.     

环境公益诉讼新探

我国现行的环境纠纷诉讼法律制度存在着明显的缺陷,应当借鉴国外的立法经验,在我国建立环境公益诉讼制度。在制度层面上,应当通过立法明确规定环境公益诉讼制度;在立法指导思想上,应当体现环境公益诉讼的特殊性即诉讼主体的多元化;在立法价值取向上,应当体现环境公益诉讼的激励机制。     

Sub-Optimal Justification and Justificatory Defenses

Justificatory defenses apply to actions that are generally wrong and illegal—mainly since they harm people—when they are (exceptionally) justified—usually since they prevent (more serious) harm to others. A strict conception of justification limits justificatory defenses to actions that reflect all pertinent principles in the optimal manner. A more relaxed conception of justification applies (also) to actions that do not reflect all pertinent principles optimally due to (unjustified) mistake but are not too far from this optimum. In the paper, I consider whether justificatory defenses should reflect the strict conception of justification or a more relaxed conception of justification. This question is important since often the relevant actions are not strictly justified, while the alternative of an excuse is frequently irrelevant or does not provide an appropriate solution. Reflection on this question raises the following dilemma: On the one hand, the strict interpretation seems too harsh, especially with regard to legal (particularly criminal) liability. On the other hand, it is difficult to explain the basis for a more relaxed conception of justification. I conclude, first, that justification—and accordingly wrongfulness—is a matter of degree and that the strictly justified action is merely the peak of a continuum, and, second, that a practical (negative) reaction is in place only with regard to actions whose wrongness is above a minimal threshold.     

Some Contrarian Concerns About Law,Psychology, and Public Policy

I discuss six issues that may cut against the majoritarian grain. They are: (1) The U. S. Supreme Court's view of children; (2) the American Psychological Association's view of people with mental retardation; (3) the dilution of autonomy in favor of beneficence; (4) Tarasoff's undermining of fidelity to therapy clients; (5) the misuse of the PCL-R in death penalty litigation; and (6) the criminal law's rejection of determination.