Law's Legitimacy and 'Democracy-Plus'

Is it the case that the law, in order to be fully legitimate,must not only be adopted in a procedurally correct way but mustalso comply with certain substantive values? In the first partof the article I prepare the ground for the discussion of legitimacyof democratic laws by considering the relationship between law’slegitimacy, its justification and the obligation to obey thelaw. If legitimacy of law is seen as based on the law beingjustified (as in Raz’s ‘service conception’),our duty to obey it does not follow automatically: it must bebased on some additional arguments. Raz’s conception oflegitimate authority does not presuppose, as many critics claim,any unduly deferential attitude towards authorities. Disconnectionof the law’s legitimacy from the absolute duty to obeyit leads to the second part of the article which consists ina critical scrutiny of the claim that the democratically adoptedlaw is legitimate only insofar as it expresses the right moralvalues. This claim is shown to be, under one interpretation(‘motivational’), nearly meaningless or, under anotherinterpretation (‘constitutional’), too strong tosurvive the pressure from moral pluralism. While we cannot hopefor a design of ‘pure procedural democracy’ (byanalogy to Rawlsian ‘pure procedural justice’),democratic procedures express the values which animate the adoptionof a democratic system in the first place.     

Cosmopolitan Duty and Legitimate State Authority

In this paper I apply a suitably developed version of Joseph Raz’s service conception of authority to the debate over the legitimacy of state action aiming to fulfill cosmopolitan moral obligations. I aim to advance two interrelated theses. First, viewed from the perspective of Raz’s service conception of authority, citizens’ moral duties to non-compatriots are an appropriate ground for authoritative intervention by agents of the state. Second, international law based on these duties can also enjoy moral authority over government decision makers. An important source of the moral force of international law is derived from the power of international law to improve officials’ ability to recognize and conform to the totality of their reasons, which contributes to their states’ legitimacy.     

回归法律规范:刑事值班律师制度适用问题再反思

目前我国刑事值班律师制度规范背后折射出有权机关抑制辩方权利的倾向。根据法律规范意旨,只要被追诉人没有辩护人,国家就应“强制指派”值班律师介入案件。将“约见”解读为国家指派值班律师需以被追诉人申请为前提,这混淆了律师会见与介入案件的关系,且将国家责任转嫁给个人,弱化了对被追诉人获得最低限度法律援助权利的保障。相关规范性文件将值班律师阅卷权能限定为“查阅”,但基于法律援助法第37条的文义、控辩平等之程序公正底线要求等因素,值班律师阅卷权能还应包括“摘抄”“复制”。《法律援助值班律师工作办法》第10条第2款规定,值班律师有量刑异议时,只要其认可犯罪嫌疑人认罪认罚的自愿性,就应在具结书上签字。这是对值班律师功能“见证化”的公开宣示,与2018年刑事诉讼法第201条的意旨以及值班律师实质性参与量刑协商的改革要求相矛盾。值班律师应被赋予拒绝签字的权利。“实质性参与”应是目前完善值班律师制度的基本方向。     

电子政务时代政府官员需要具备的观念

全面发展电子政务需要我国政府官员具备如下观念:政务公开、官民平等、参与和民主、廉洁、服务、注重责任等。从根本上说,官员们必须放弃残存的掠夺(腐败)观念,具备交易观念。电子政务的发展不仅对各级官员提出了上述观念上的要求,而且也为上述观念的贯彻和落实提供了比以往任何时候都要好的条件。因此,电子政务对于观念转变的要求是自我实施的。     

为服务性权威观辩护:三个批评及其回应

权威能否正当化是法律政治哲学中既经典又前沿的问题,它可以简单概括为:服从权威意志能否得到道德上的辩护。约瑟夫·拉兹提出的“服务性权威观”对此贡献卓著,同时也饱受争议与批评,亟须澄清和回应。“服务性权威观”的核心理念是:在遵从正确理由比个人自治更重要的条件下,如果服从权威也确实能够帮助我们更好地遵从理由,那么权威就具备正当性。有关的批评理论主要有制度性权威观、责任性权威观和程序性权威观,但是制度性权威观错误地将权威的本质视为制度性的,责任性权威观难以在责任与权威两者之间建立概念联系,而程序性权威观主张民主程序具备内在价值并不成立,民主只具备工具价值。因此,以上三种竞争性理论均未成功,服务性权威观仍旧得以捍卫。且经由这些交锋和反思,反而揭示了服务性权威观解释力的整体性与灵活性。     

The Service Conception: Just One Simple Question

It is crystal clear that the Service Conception includes at least three conditions, what I shall call: the ‘normal justification condition’, the ‘independence condition’ and the ‘dependence condition’. The overarching rationale of these conditions is that they ensure that authority is only justified when it provides the best means for the subject to conform to the reasons for action that she actually has. However, it is difficult to clarify whether Raz implicitly presupposes a fourth necessary condition. This condition might be called a ‘reliable belief condition’, that is, that the putative subject must reliably believe that the putative authority-agent satisfies the Service Conception (or more precisely, its other three conditions). In sum, the purpose of this paper is to pose Joseph Raz one simple question: is it a necessary condition of your Service Conception, that the subject believes that the authority-agent satisfies the Service Conception? As a matter of interpretation, different parts of Raz’s work appear to lead in entirely opposite directions: some parts clearly support the reliable belief condition, others do not. Regardless of Raz’s ultimate answer, however, the question reveals a broader inconsistency. Only if the Service Conception does include the belief condition will it support Raz’s claim that authority is consistent with one’s rational ‘self-reliance’, that is, acting upon one’s own judgement (including, as to who has authority). Only if the Service Conception does not include the belief condition will it support Raz’s perfectionist account of government. It seems Raz must choose between one or other.     

公职人员双轨惩戒制度的宪法基础

政务处分法设置双轨惩戒制度有其宪法上的依据。我国宪法为公职人员设置了两种责任制。在功能上,权力责任制强调公职人员应当受人民监督;工作责任制则强调提高工作质量和工作效率。在理念上,权力责任制体现了“为人民服务”的政治要求;工作责任制则意在“反对官僚主义”。由工作责任制发展出的“社会主义责任制”,还进一步确认了相应组织具有宪法赋予的自主管理权。以上述区分为指引,可以合理划分处分决定机关的管理权限。政务处分虽可用于落实工作责任制,却主要是落实权力责任制的工具;任免机关、单位的狭义“处分”则主要是落实工作责任制的工具。监察机关依法不能代替机关、单位直接作出狭义“处分”。狭义“处分”程序可由公职人员任免机关、单位的组织(人事)部门推动。     

Public Reason and Religion: The Theo-Ethical Equilibrium Argument for Restraint

Most public reason theorists believe that citizens are under a ‘duty of restraint’. Citizens must refrain from supporting laws for which they have only non-public reasons, such as religious reasons. The theo-ethical equilibrium argument purports to show that theists should accept this duty, on the basis of their religious convictions. Theists’ beliefs about God’s nature should lead them to doubt moral claims for which they cannot find secular grounds, and to refrain from imposing such claims upon others. If successful, this argument would defuse prominent objections to public reason liberalism. This paper assesses the theo-ethical equilibrium argument, with a specific focus on Christian citizens. I argue that Christians should seek theo-ethical equilibrium, but need not endorse the duty of restraint. I establish this in part through examining the important theological concept of natural law. That discussion also points to more general and persistent problems with defining ‘public reasons’.     

Making the State Responsible: Intersex Embodiment,Medical Jurisdiction,and State Responsibility

Through consideration of new developments in the United Kingdom's intersex policy, this article traces the ways in which responsibility is produced, naturalized, and avoided by individuals, institutions, and the state. Jurisdiction is identified as a barrier to the attribution of responsibility that must be overcome to achieve progress in relation to the needs of intersex people. By bringing together jurisdictional analysis and vulnerability theory, this article demonstrates how the state has traditionally abrogated responsibility by compartmentalizing specific practices as governed by medical authority. It highlights that such accounts mask the role of the state in the creation of jurisdiction and the ways in which governance is conducted. Challenging these boundaries allows vulnerability theorists to move the state towards greater levels of responsibility. By combining these theoretical tools, the article enhances the practical utility of vulnerability theory and advances an important agenda for intersex people.     

行政立法中责任条款的重构

行政立法是我国立法活动的重要组成部分，但行政立法中的责任条款却存在着责任主体的单一性、责任内容的片面性、责任体系的操作性不强等先天不足的问题。因此必须以正确的理念为指导对其进行重构，文中提出了重构的立法建议：改革现行的行政立法制度，发挥人民群众和其他组织在行政立法中的作用，实现法律上的程序公正；明确法律责任的承担主体、凸显行政机关及其工作人员的责任；完善行政立法中的责任体系、增强其责任条款的可操作性；围绕职权与责任的统一，重构行政机关及其工作人员的法律责任。     

Divesting from Climate Change: The Road to Influence

Is fossil fuels divestment likely to achieve its aims? This article evaluates the rationales for divestment in terms of their capacity to give the campaign influence. It focuses on the direct effects of divestment on financial actors because divestment is a specific means of exerting influence outside of conventional political channels. In seeking to end fossil fuel industries in order to halt climate change, the campaign deploys a variety of arguments to win support and wield influence, namely, the legality of divestment and, indeed, the emerging duty to divest; investors’ moral responsibility to avoid complicity in the fossil fuel economy; investors’ moral responsibility to use their leverage against climate polluters; and the power of financial sanctions to create a business case for abandoning fossil fuels. Although in combination they may be effective, each of these asserted rationales has some limitations that may diminish the influence of the divestment movement. Moreover, the movement does not engage sufficiently with the systemic qualities of finance capitalism that must also be reckoned with in order to address broader patterns of environmental unsustainability. Although the divestment movement aspires to ultimately change government policies on climate change, it may achieve greater influence by also seeking better government regulation of the financial economy.     

论中国传统家族司法主体的权力——以国家法律对家族长权力的确认为视角

中国传统家族司法是当今法律文化研究的重点,其司法主体如何在司法过程中实施司法权和国家如何看待这一权力的应用,引发了对传统家族长权力现代变迁的深刻思考。我们在理解国家法律与基层司法相结合治理社会这一法律文化的基础上,研究中国传统家族司法主体的权力,能够得出现代家族长的权力与民族现代化发展互容互补的结论。     

物流企业质押监管业务的法律分析

物流企业所提供的质押监管业务是中国近年来快速发展的由商业银行借助物流企业的服务能力而开发的新型的动产担保模式。根据业务实践,归纳出三种类型的质押监管模式,重点对输出质押监管合法性及内在缺陷进行了探讨,分析了物流企业的义务与责任:物流企业的身份是委托法律关系下的受托人,代表银行占有质物,实现质权的设定与存续,在输出监管模式下,物流企业通过"共同控制、共同占有"的方式实现质权的设定与存续;保管义务是物流企业所承接的质权人——银行的法定义务,仅存在于自营仓库内的质押监管业务;物流企业对银行承担监管、受托义务,并对因其过错给银行造成的损失承担相应补充责任。     

权利观念的中国化——从民族国家选择到社区伦理挑战

中国在法治现代化过程中,始终面临的基本问题是,外来权利观念与在地经验之间的关系。所谓在地经验,包括民族国家的认识和社会民众的认同两个层面。这也就意味着,权利观念进入中国要经历双重语境化的过程。一方面,引入外来权利观念是中国建立强大民族国家的需要,并且权利观念会随着国家治理策略的改变而改变;另一方面,权利观念一旦被确立为国家意识形态,并强力推行进入社会生活,有可能会加速既有社会结构的解体。由于新的社会结构并不能很快形成,反而使得社会处于不稳定状态。对于转型社会而言,以个体权利为基础,同时强调公民社会责任的共同体观念的建立就显得十分必要。     

Safe or sorry? Rights,responsibilities and retribution—the new three Rs of education in New Zealand?

A school is a microcosm of society and thus is subject to the problems existing within society generally. The rights and responsibilities of persons outside the school gates apply within the school also. The school environment is unique in that not only is a young person compelled to attend but he or she must spend a great deal of each day within the school's jurisdiction. May it then be argued that there is an enhanced responsibility of schools towards the emotional and physical welfare of their students in relation to matters within their control? This article will examine whether a New Zealand public school has a responsibility that extends further than a moral duty for the safety of its students. Particularly it will consider a school's potential liability in respect of the various forms of student‐to‐student bullying and harassment. It examines the potential for an action against a school under human rights legislation, at common law, and in criminal law.     

Criminals or Patients? Towards a Tragic Conception of Moral and Legal Responsibility

There is a gap between, on the one hand, the tragic character of human action and, on the other hand, our moral and legal conceptions of responsibility that focus on individual agency and absolute guilt. Drawing on Kierkegaard’s understanding of tragic action and engaging with contemporary discourse on moral luck, poetic justice, and relational responsibility, this paper argues for a reform of our legal practices based on a less ‘harsh’ (Kierkegaard) conception of moral and legal responsibility and directed more at empathic understanding based on the emotional and imaginative appreciation of personal narratives. This may help our societies and communities to better cope with unacceptable deeds by individuals who are neither criminals nor patients, to make room for praise as well as blame and punishment, and to set up practices and institutions that do not rely on a conception of responsibility that is hard to bear for all of us.     

Fiduciary disclosure of medical mistakes: the duty to promptly notify patients of adverse health care events

Fiduciary obligations are imposed by the common law to ensure that a person occupying a societal role with a high potential for the manipulation of vulnerable persons exercises utmost good faith. Australian law has recognised that the doctor-patient relationship, while not wholly fiduciary, has fiduciary aspects. Amongst such duties are those prohibiting sexual or financial abuse of patients or disclosure without express authority of confidential information. One important consequence of attaching such fiduciary duties to the doctor-patient relationship is that the onus of proof falls not upon the vulnerable party (the patient), but upon the doctor (to disprove the allegation). Another is that consent cannot be pleaded as an absolute defence. In this article the authors advocate that the law should now accept that the fiduciary obligations of the doctor-patient relationship extend to creating a legal duty that any adverse health care event be promptly reported to the patient involved. The reasons for creating such a presumption, as well as its elements and exceptions, are explained.     

法官澄清义务研究

法官澄清义务以发现客观真实为目的，以法官的积极作为为表现形式。澄清义务由法官对辩方的诉讼关照义务、对控方一定的释明权、法官庭上积极的查证责任，以及庭外调查取证责任组成。在我国现阶段研究澄清义务，有助于体现审判中心主义原则，扭转法官在庭审中不合理的倾向性，提高简易程序事实认定的准确性，保证法官变更诉讼罪名的合理性。未来澄清义务将强调协助性和补充性，淡化义务色彩，成为对被告权利的有力保障。我国法官履行澄清义务应作为检察机关履行证明责任的补充手段，在不改变原证据构造的前提下对存疑证据进行调查核实。法官应积极履行关照义务，特别是基本权利告知义务。辩方申请法官收集对己有利的证据，能够证明证据存在并提供取证线索的，法官应尽量允许。增加法官庭外调查言词证据的手段，强化检察机关和侦查机关配合法官取证的义务。     

Respectful Inter-Group Interactions: A Method for Revising Group Attachment?

In the present study, we investigated whether respectful treatment shaped participants’ perceptions of procedural justice during interactions with out-group authorities, and whether the effects of respectful treatment would extend to participants’ attachment to their in-group and to the authority’s social group. We hypothesised that the nature of the relationship between the out-group and a participant’s social group (diametrically opposed vs. not opposed to one another) would moderate the effect of respect on participants’ procedural justice judgements, attachment to the in-group, and attachment to the out-group. Participants (n = 186) read a short, fictitious news story describing an interaction between a fellow in-group member (the subordinate) and an authority. As predicted, respectful treatment increased perceptions of procedural justice and also led participants to feel more attached to the authority’s social group. Contrary to expectation, participants’ attachment to their in-group was not affected by treatment, but instead by authority group membership: interactions with an authority from a social group diametrically opposed to the participant’s social group led participants to become significantly more attached to their in-group, regardless of the authority’s behaviour (respectful vs. disrespectful) in the interaction. Results are discussed in terms of practical strategies for authorities to effectively manage interactions with out-group subordinates.