国际法中的“反事实推理”:作用与局限

时间的流逝使法学家和实践者面对两个相互联系的问题,即因果关系的证据问题以及根据反事实推理,如果原先的非法行为不发生,现在看来会是怎样的合理性问题。虽然心理学、历史和国际关系等多个学科越来越多地利用反事实推理,但国际法在很大程度上忽视或忽略了该方法。反事实推理可增加国际事件可被感知的法律意义。反事实推理能让我们评价因果关系,这对于在国际法律体系中伸张正义来说尤为重要。反事实推理是贸易救济中一种有用的方法。反事实推理在评价国际法的有效性方面起着重要作用。但由于其假设性的本质和社会事件的复杂性,反事实推理只应被视为其他方法的补充。     

The Institutional Veil in Public International Law — International Organisations and the Law of Treaties

Netherlands International Law Review -     

规则、道德衡量与法律推理

法律规则属于为行动提供理由的指导性规则。行动理由存在一阶理由与二阶理由两种基本类型,其中前者包含自行权衡,而后者排除自行权衡。法律规则显然属于二阶理由,因此依据规则的裁判实际上是排除裁判者依据一阶理由自行判断的过程,只有法律规则才能成为法律推理的基础。但是由于规则本身存在正当化上的缺陷,因此作为一阶理由的道德理由在特定情形之下将会取代法律规则在法律推理中的地位。     

Chechnya's Right of Secession under Russian Constitutional Law

This article was written in a period of time when the escalationof the armed conflict in Northern Caucasus and particularlyin Chechnya reached the zenith of violence and unpardonablehuman slaughter.¹ Although contemporary international law doesnot accept the separatist movement's claims to create its ownstatehood, we have to look at the constitutional proceduresfor the modifications of the Fundamental Law of the RussianFederation: At the same time, the political situation afterthe dissolution of the former Soviet Union, the strong presidentialpowers in the constitutional hierarchy of executive organs,and the evident tensions between them and the Russian constitutionaltraditions have to be taken into account. The ambiguous and complicated character of the Chechen conflictis due to the fact that the Russian Federation has tried tokeep this conflict from the attention of the international communityby claiming that the Russian-Chechen conflict is an entirelyinternal matter. It is doubtful in this case if the Russianleadership, who have continued their tough policy, will finda peaceful solution to the almost ten-year armed conflict inthe region. Footnotes ^*LLM, Sofia University "Saint Kliment Ohridski", Faculty ofLaw.     

Multiculturalism,Institutional Law,and Imaginary Justice

Following Le Pen's relative successin the French presidential vote and the BritishNational Party's historic return in our own2002 local elections, the article considers theprospects for the production of morecommunicative race relations in contemporaryBritain. To this end we reassess the media'streatment of the Stephen Lawrence case andexplore the political logic of the Macphersonreport, the policy document which followed theapparent miscarriage of justice that allowedLawrence's alleged killers to walk free. Interms of our analysis of the media we areconcerned to show how the real of Britain'sordinary racism was hidden behind an ideologyof multiculturalism that scapegoated singularindividuals to cover for the structuralinequalities of wider society. The article aimsto show how the media upheld the notion ofobjective justice that institutional law wasapparently unable to secure.But while the media supported the ideology ofthe law, its exposure of the failings ofinstitutional law also led to calls for legalreform to guarantee the realisation ofinstitutional justice. Although we accept thatthe attempt to achieve legal totality isimpossible, our argument is that the critiqueof legal objectivity, which takes in subjectiverights claims, may present the possibility forthe realisation of a novel, inclusive, model ofrace relations. That is to say that althoughthe media supports the ideology of the law, thefact that this support requires a critique ofpractical law forces the law to modernisearound the idealistic demands of its ownideological structure. Akin toDouzinas,¹ who has argued for theendless expansion of rights as post-modernutopianism, we believe that this process ofmodernisation, which is arranged to maintainthe status quo through minimal reform, is thecondition of possibility of a more inclusivesystem of race relations.     

Legal Reasoning as a Special Case of Moral Reasoning

Abstract. Moral statements are related to some ought- and good-making facts. If at least one of these facts exists then it is reasonable that an action in question is prima facie good and obligatory. If all of these facts take place, then it is reasonable that the action is definitively good and obligatory. Yet, moral reasoning is relatively uncertain. The law is more "fixed". Legal interpretatory statements ought to express a compromise between the literal sense of the law and moral considerations. They can be to a high degree both coherent and accepted. One may emotionally reject them but most people have a disposition to endorse a coherent and commonly accepted value system.     

德商、道德价值规律与品德标尺的应用

本文首先提出德商(Moral Quotient,MQ)的定义、计算公式和测评步骤。德商概念的引入以及由此推出的品德标尺理论旨在为公民道德建设提供了理论参考。     

1999年国际公法和国际私法学研究的回顾与展望

一、国际法学部分 (一)概述 1999年是国际法学的研究形势较好的一年。一方面,今年恰逢第一次海牙和平会议召开一百周年和日内瓦国际人道法四公约签订五十周年,同时也是联合国国际法十年的最后一年。国际法得到广泛普及,遵守、维护国际法成为共识。另一方面,新殖民主义、霸权主义抬头,发生了以美国为首的北约无视联合国的权威对南斯拉夫联盟共和国进行长达78天的空中打击和轰炸中国驻南大使馆、造成我使馆人员伤亡及财...     

Elephants, Ivory and International Law

So there has been little check on the killing of him [African elephants] for commercial gain, and his numbers are said to be fast diminishing. (Sir J. Arthur Thomson, The Outline of Natural History (New York, Putnam's, 1931), at 200)     

法律中的可辩驳推理

法律中的可辩驳推理是法律方法研究中的一个新课题。可辩驳推理作为一种独立的推理模式而在各个领域发生影响主要有以下三种理论的支持:其一,哲学的“语用学转向”;其二,人工智能研究的深入;其三,单一性法律推理向非单一性法律推理的转向。法律中的可辩驳推理可以分为三个维度:推定的可辩驳性;过程的可辩驳性和理论的可辩驳性。可辩驳推理对法律方法、法律论证与民主法治等重大的法律理论问题都产生了深远的影响。     

论刑法的常识、常情、常理化

刑法的常识、常情、常理化具有必然性和道德性,并有机构成刑法的应有理性,而这将在根本上促进刑法保障人权和保护社会的两个基本价值或机能的实现.刑法的常识、常情、常理化可在刑法立法、刑法司法和刑罚执行环节得到动态性的实现.     

防空识别区、国际法与邻接空问

1923年,当远洋客轮还是往返于欧洲大陆和北美之间的唯一交通工具的时候,美国最高法院就已经认为,第十八修正案对美国领海是有效的,因而其规定对于所有外国船只来说也是可以强制执行的.①人们对这一判决的反应是直截了当、毫不含糊的:有十个国家表示强烈反对,其中有的认为"国际上普遍接受的国际法原则绝不允许他们采取这种侵害轮船船旗国主权的措施."②许多人承认美国没有违反国际法,但是认为美国的行为"跟国际惯例相左".③人们对美国未能遵守文明国家在这方面所公认的礼节的反应是如此强烈,以至于美国被迫和受到财政法规影响的航海国家就一系列双边"酒条约"进行谈判.     

Duress, International Criminal Law and Literature

This paper uses parallels between Sophocles’ Theban Playsand the House of Lords decision in Dudley and Stephens, to questionthe decision in the Erdemovi case before the International CriminalTribunal for the former Yugoslavia. One should distinguish betweencausal, moral and criminal responsibility. If a man who commitsa crime, not by the action of his free will, is to be foundguilty, we are essentially equating causal responsibility withcriminal guilt. This logic clearly does not correspond withthat of the rest of international criminal law. The storiesof Erdemovi, Oedipus, Dudley and Stephens are tragedies. Eachof the victims/perpetrators felt an overwhelming sense of remorse.Whether they should be considered morally guilty of murder isa matter of individual conscience. The International CriminalTribunal for the Former Yugoslavia majority erred in using anabsolute moral position in Erdemovi. The majority's moral condemnationof the killing of innocents was confused with the question ofwhether Erdemovi should have been criminally punished. The contentof the majority opinion is largely of an irreproachably moralisticnature, though shrouded and mystified by the discussion of precedent.More generally, the decision to try Erdemovi at the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was itself self-defeating.Erdemovi should never have stood trial at The Hague. The internationalcommunity should not aid in self-flagellation. While his actionscannot be approved of, they should not be punished internationally.He could have been helped, supported and reintegrated with fargreater benefit to all.         ‘Heroesare hard to find in an atmosphere of total terror.’¹     

The Common Law and the Forms of Reasoning

The purpose of this article is to examine how various forms of reasoning both can and should be used to decide cases in the common law tradition. I start by separating positive questions about what the law is from normative questions about what the law ought to be. Next, I present a Peircean account of three main forms of reasoning – deduction, induction and abduction – and examine how they can be used by judges to decide cases in the common law. Finally, I argue that the three forms of reasoning can be used to answer both kinds of questions, but in different ways. All three forms of reasoning can be used to answer questions of positive law, while questions of normative law present a special case that may require the use of aesthetic judgments of taste in the formation of a legal hypothesis.     

2005年国际法学学术研究回顾

国际法是法学一个部门,也是国际关系学在宏观意义上的一个极其重要的一个部门.国际法作为对国家与国家之间关系进行规范的规则的总体,它对维持国际秩序、国际政治力量相互之间的重新组合以及国家在政治、军事、经济和贸易等各方面的发展,始终发挥着相当重要的作用.