宪法裁判与民主的悖论

当今许多国家为了维护民主纷纷建立了宪法裁判制度,然而也有些国家却为了民主不被侵害而拒绝宪法裁判。宪法裁判与民主的紧张自始至今从未消除,其实它们之间无矛盾性又无必然性,宪法裁判有助于民主,同时它也存在一定的民主风险。为发挥宪法裁判对民主的优长,应该运用法院的司法功能去避免其对民主的危害,这需要在宪法裁判与民主之间进行调适,恰当界定宪法裁判机关与立法机关之间的适当领域。对存在民主缺憾的国家来说,宪法裁判不失为至关重要的选择。     

Basic Rights and Democracy in Jurgen Habermas's Procedural Paradigm of the Law*

Abstract . A central element of Habermas's discourse theory of law is his procedural paradigm. This includes a procedural understanding of basic rights, which is supposed to resolve both the classical tension between basic rights and democracy and the problem of collision between basic rights. I try to show that the procedural paradigm can do the first only at the cost of inadmissible idealization. Under realistic conditions one can only attempt to institutionalize the tension between basic rights and democracy as rationally as possible. Also, the problem of collision of basic rights cannot really be solved by the procedural paradigm. What can be substantiated is merely a prima facie priority of participation in the process of public opinion- and will-formation over merely private activities. Whether this prima facie priority becomes a definite priority in a concrete case or group of cases depends on the weight of counterarguments, as to which the procedural paradigm is silent.     

Constitutional democracy and the legitimacy of judicial review

It has long been argued that the institution of judicial review is incompatible with democratic institutions. This criticism usually relies on a procedural conception of democracy, according to which democracy is essentially a form of government defined by equal political rights and majority rule. I argue that if we see democracy not just as a form of government, but more basically as a form of sovereignty, then there is a way to conceive of judicial review as a legitimate democratic institution. The conception of democracy that stems from the social contract tradition of Locke, Rousseau, Kant and Rawls, is based in an ideal of the equality, independence, and original political jurisdiction of all citizens. Certain equal basic rights, in addition to equal political rights, are a part of democratic sovereignty. In exercising their constituent power at the level of constitutional choice, free and equal persons could choose judicial review as one of the constitutional mechanisms for protecting their equal basic rights. As such, judicial review can be seen as a kind of shared precommitment by sovereign citizens to maintaining their equal status in the exercise of their political rights in ordinary legislative procedures. I discuss the conditions under which judicial review is appropriate in a constitutional democracy. This argument is contrasted with Hamilton's traditional argument for judicial review, based in separation of powers and the nature of judicial authority. I conclude with some remarks on the consequences for constitutional interpretation.I am indebted to John Rawls and Burton Dreben for their helpful advice and their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

宽容:和谐社会的宪政之道

宽容是和谐社会的基本精神。和谐社会的宪政之道首先是宽容之道。宽容的宪政建设要求我们勘正忽视公民基本权利“基本”属性的错误认识,确立宪政民主观的民主思维。     

作为宪政实践机制的合宪性审查

合宪性审查作为一种宪政实践机制,蕴涵了宪法的“高级法”观念、自然正义、宪法保障、分权与权力理性、宪政民主、人权保障等思想基础,集中展示它的宪政性与现代意义。为此,应当认真对待宪政生活中的合宪性,当前我国的关键问题不在于应否创制,而在于如何创制合宪性审查机制。     

Constitutional Rights and Democracy in the U.S.A.: The Issue -of Judicial Review

Abstract. The first section takes up some main details of American constitutional history. At the end of that section and in section two, we concentrate on one constitutional doctrine in particular, judicial review. We argue that this doctrine rests, traditionally, on the foundational idea of a permanent tension between democratic institutions and basic rights. In section three, we deal with the problem just raised, by suggesting an alternative view of the relationship that exists between these fundamental constitutional elements. Here we attempt to show that there is an essential principled harmony between basic constitutional rights and democratic majority rule. And we try to locate judicial review within this alternative conception. Then in section four and in the conclusion we discuss the institutional arrangements for the practice of judicial review in the light of this alternative conception.     

宪政视角下的听证权初探

听证权是一种从宪法正当程序和其他基本权利中推导出的宪法性权利,是保障其他权利实现的权利,是人民实现当家作主的一种程序性权利。听证权的制度化建立在主权在民的深厚法理基础之上,集中体现了控制国家权力和保障人权的宪政理念,它能够加快民主决策、民主管理和民主监督的宪政化步伐,对实现社会正义、形成宪政秩序具有极其重要的作用,因而是宪法实施的重要制度机制。     

The Dual Nature of Law

The argument of this article is that the dual‐nature thesis is not only capable of solving the problem of legal positivism, but also addresses all fundamental questions of law. Examples are the relation between deliberative democracy and democracy qua decision‐making procedure along the lines of the majority principle, the connection between human rights as moral rights and constitutional rights as positive rights, the relation between constitutional review qua ideal representation of the people and parliamentary legislation, the commitment of legal argumentation to both authoritative and non‐authoritative reasons, and the distinction between rules as expressing a real “ought” and principles as expressing its ideal counterpart. All of this underscores the point that the dual nature of law is the single most essential feature of law.     

关于宪政的几个基本理论问题

宪政要义在于限制政治权力、保护个人自由和权利,而民主则主要解决政治权力的来源及其获得方式问题。为了达成一种宪法秩序,应在宪政与民主之间建立相互支持的关系。实行宪政的关键在于“良宪之治”,而非“宪政程序化”。     

我国司法终极性的缺失与确立

现代司法权的一个重要特征是它具有终极性。司法的终极性使得诉讼成为解决社会纠纷的最后手段。但在我国,司法机关的权力受到了严格限制,人民法院尚不能够成为民众保护自身权益的最有效地方。提高司法机关的宪政地位以及扩大司法机关的权力对当今的司法改革是必要且必须的。     

美国宪法解释:"麦迪逊两难"之消解

在美国宪法解释实践中长期存在着被学者们所称的“麦迪逊之两难”问题,即民主多数统治的自由与少数自由权利之间始终处于一种似乎不可消解的张力之中。不同的学者和法官由于基于各自不同的民主与宪政原则,而在宪法解释的理论与实践中采取了不同的解释方法与立场,主要分属两大宪法解释流派:原意主义和非原意主义。然而,认真考察和分析美国宪法与宪政原意与原则理想,则会得出“麦迪逊之两难”命题不过是一个假命题的结论,因为真正的民主自身包含着自由平等原则。     

流浪乞讨与管制--从贫困救助看中央与地方权限的界定

随着《收容遣送办法》的废止,个人自由权利与社会治安秩序之间的现实冲突比过去更为突显。应转变中央和地方关系的传统思维,在允许地方更多自主权和选择权的同时,更充分地保障公民个人的宪法基本权利。无论是中央和地方关系的法律界定,还是公民权利的宪法保障,都要求建立独立的司法机构以审查地方立法的有效性。     

“重要性理论”之梳理与批判——基于德国公法学理论的检视

"法律保留"理论关乎民主和法治诉求的实现,随着宪政国家框架下对基本权利的认识,其转变为围绕基本权利保护而展开的权力正当性探索。德国联邦宪法法院的"重要性理论"推进了一种围绕着基本权利保护但又与机构功能相符的权能分配的考量可能。但"重要性理论"的区分标准缺少清楚性和可预期性,这一致命的理论弱点,导致它最终成为了空白公式。"重要的"这个概念没能真正实现法教义学之目的,只能作为法律实践中有启发性的概念。     

纳税人权利话语之法理形构

有关纳税人权利话语的实践性议论和法律议论唤起了法学方法论的觉醒,但关于纳税人的权益如何构成一项公法上主观权利或宪法权利的争辩并没有被认真对待。如果直接从公民基本权利的性质切入,再加以层级化的结果,可以将之分为:自然权、宪法基本权利和一般法律权利三个层次,税法上的纳税人权利的主观公权利性质似乎没有疑问,但是宪法层次的纳税人权利面临着法律实践和理论的困难,在宪法解释学意义上所谓“纳税人基本权利”也许可以解释为宪法基本权利和纳税义务之间的平衡。     

论中国宪法学家的使命

宪法学家的古典形象表明,学术追求与政治担当是宪法学家的双重使命。中国宪法学家的学术追求在于:发掘历史经验,拓展研究领域;洞悉历史逻辑,揭示宪政规律;立足客观实在,形成宪法共识;围绕中国问题,构建中国特色社会主义宪法学。而中国宪法学家政治担当(推进民主政治)的基本维度在于:中国国情是发展民主政治的基础,宪法思维是促进民主政治的核心,政治智慧是实现民主政治的关键。     

论德国行政法的基本原则

德国是大陆法系国家的典范,也是近现代世界行政法体系中一股不可忽视的力量,尤其是其行政法的基本原则被誉为欧洲行政法之灵感与源泉,对各国行政法发展的影响极大。对德国行政法及其基本原则的产生最有影响的是其法治国理念与议会民主、基本权利等宪法原则。正是伴随着这些因素的作用,德国逐渐形成了依法行政、比例与信赖保护三大并驾齐驱的基本原则。这些原则体现的价值有一定的普适性,值得我国借鉴。     

The Subjects of Collectively Binding Decisions: Democratic Inclusion and Extraterritorial Law

Citizenship and residency are basic conditions for political inclusion in a democracy. However, if democracy is premised on the inclusion of everyone subject to collectively binding decisions, the relevance of either citizenship or residency for recognition as a member of the polity is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to specify the conditions for being subject to collective decisions in the sense relevant to democratic theory. Three conceptions of what it means to be subject to collectively binding decisions are identified and examined, referring to those subject to legal duties and legal powers or to those subject to legal duties and state institutions. The contrast between them is most clearly illustrated in relation to non‐residents, those not present in the territory of the state. The extraterritorial dimension of the law thus highlights a fundamental ambiguity in the theory of democracy concerning the extension of political rights.     

论回避宪法判断原则

作为"权利的宣言书",宪法最明快地保护人权,理当在实践中发挥作用.但即使在宪法审查制度发达的国家,法院在引用宪法上也恪守消极主义立场,尽量回避宪法性判断,在法律层面上处理案件,充分尊重普通法律的稳定和立法权的独立.然而法律的制定常受现实的影响,从而忽略宪法的基本原则,如果盲目坚持回避宪法判断的原则,就会姑息纵容损害基本权的立法行为.所以当基本权受到明显的、持续的、严重的侵犯时,各国法院仍会积极适用宪法判断.这一点也值得国内实务界和学术界适当借鉴,以应付以宪法为诉讼依据的案件和事件.     

欧洲近现代历史上宪政民主政制的生成、建构与演进

宪政民主政制与社会经济发展之间的关系,是一个值得深入进行理论探讨和实证研究的新课题。本文对西方宪政民主的起源、生成与演变史做了一个鸟瞰式的回顾,为探究宪政民主与经济发展之间的关系提供一些背景知识。在从词源和辞义上辨析了西方文字中的"constitution"以及以及与之对应的中文"宪法"和"宪政"的基本含义之后,本文对英国、法国和德国近现代宪政民主政制的生成、建构和演变史做了一些简略的历史考察,并在最后一部份对近现代欧洲历史上宪政民主政制下的法律制度的生成原因做了理论的和历史的分析。     

名誉权与言论自由:宣科案中的是非与轻重

本文围绕不久前审结的一场名誉权诉讼展开讨论。文章首先分析了该案涉及的事实和法律问题;然后揭示并讨论了该案中被遮蔽和忽略的具有重要意义的宪法问题;最后则对法院审理名誉权诉讼时应当遵循的原则作了进一步的讨论。本文的基本观点是名誉权诉讼包含了公民人格尊严和言论自由两种基本权利之间的紧张关系。处理名誉权诉讼的正确办法不是先验地确定何种权利当然地具有优先性,而是在民主宪政的一般原则之下,根据每一案件的具体情况,判断什么是最值得保护的价值,并在此基础上平衡各种不同利益。