立法的合法性评估

法律绩效评估是指法律实施一段时间以后,有关政府部门、组织或人员对其实施效果等进行评估,根据法律在实施中存在的问题,分析其立法上的原因,从而进一步完善立法.立法的合法性评估是法律绩效评估的重要内容之一,它包括立法的形式合法性、价值合法性以及实践合法性的评估.当下中国立法面临权限不清晰、公众参与缺乏等合法性困境,需在立法程序、立法权限等制度方面加以重构.     

论著作权法定许可的正当性基础

著作权法定许可的正当性基础可分从三个层面进行分析,首先维护著作权多元利益平衡;其次增进言论自由和文化繁荣;最后促进衍生作品创作.其中,著作权多元利益平衡和保护言论自由是著作权限制制度的基本共性.但是,鼓励衍生作品创作,解决现有法律制度框架下衍生作品创作的法律困境是法定许可相比其他限制制度所独有的价值和作用.因此,著作权法定许可的正当性分析包括共性和个性的分析,两者共同构成著作权法定许可正当性的基础.     

民事诉讼证据的合法性——从最高法院关于录音证据的司法解释谈起

证据的合法性问题 ,无论在诉讼法理论或者在司法实务中都是极具争议的话题。最高法院曾经批复私自录音形成的证据材料不具有合法性、不能作为证据使用 ,新近颁布的《民事诉讼证据的若干规定》对此又语焉不详 ,在理论和实践中引起诸多歧见。为此 ,笔者从最高法院关于私自录音的司法解释入手 ,借鉴民事实体法研究的一些理论和方法 ,深入分析了诉讼理论与司法实务中与证据合法性相关的几个问题 ,并就如何构建我国民事诉讼非法证据排除规则提出了初步设想     

The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of International Environmental Institutions

The Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) concluded during the past decades have established complex interlinkages between the institutions established by MEAs and institutions such as UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank and the funds administered by the Bank, in particular the GEF. Questions regarding the effectiveness and legitimacy of this system of global environmental governance have arisen both in practice and in research. This essay explores the manner in which these questions have arisen, how they have been addressed in recent research and provides the context for the subsequent contributions to this special issue. Steinar Andresen is professor of political science at the University of Oslo, Ellen Hey is professor of public international law at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam.     

The Generalizability of Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice,Legitimacy, and Speeding Intention of South Korean Drivers

Asian Journal of Criminology - Empirical support for procedural justice theory in criminology is robust in the developed Western countries, whereas the results are mixed for non-Western or...     

Legitimacy in corrections

Research Summary
To extend research on legitimacy to the correctional system, we study a sample of 202 adult inmates randomly assigned to serve their 6-month sentence at one of two institutions—a traditional prison or a military-style correctional boot camp. Findings show that perceptions of justice system legitimacy changed during the course of incarceration, that the prison (but not the boot camp) proved delegitimizing, and that certain regime characteristics explained why.
Policy Implications
Across academic disciplines, studies continue to link compliance with perceived legitimacy. Compliance with the law, for instance, is related closely to the legitimacy of the justice system and its actors. These findings suggest implementing legitimacy-building policies such as procedurally fair treatment and decision making by police officers and judges. This article, by finding legitimacy to be malleable even at the final stage of the justice process, proposes the efficacy of similar policies in the correctional system. As research from England and Wales has shown, legitimizing strategies in this context could increase compliance both during and after incarceration.     

论程序主义的合法性理论——以罗尔斯、哈贝马斯相关理论为例

在“上帝死了”之后,人类社会进入到一个韦伯所言之诸神与诸魔的时期,这一时期的基本特点是一个人所认定的“神”在他人眼中很可能是“魔”。这使得对法之合法性基础的证成变得比较困难——至少,早期那种独断论式的合法性理论已经不能满足这个价值多元时代的需求。在这一背景下,以罗尔斯、哈贝马斯等为首的一批学者创设了一种程序论理论,对多元时期的法之合法性问题予以了强有力的回应。     

商标法上废弃请求权的正当性基础及其界限

过去商标侵权物品处置主要以行政处罚等公权力手段为主,不能满足私权救济的需要.现行《中华人民共和国商标法》(以下简称《商标法》)第63条确立了废弃请求权规范,有助于弥补公权力手段处置商标侵权物品的不足,完善"原权-救济权"的权利链条,降低社会治理的成本.在平等主体的私法领域内,权利人请求处置商标侵权物品,与他人对载体享有...     

公共行政民营化的正当性基础

公共行政民营化一般分为组织民营化与任务民营化,具体形式更是多样。国家任务、国家权力的范围及运用都涉及公益的问题,一般来说,法律保留与法律优先理论也会随着时代的发展而调整,公共行政民营化实施没有法理障碍,即使干涉行政也可以通过功能、手段实现民营化,但考虑民营化涉及到公益以及人权保障,原则上仍有法律保留的必要,只是密度大小不同而已。     

The Treaty of Amsterdam: Challenges of Flexibility and Legitimacy

The paper reviews key aspects of the new constitutional framework for the European Union, once the Treaty of Amsterdam has been ratified, in the light of the core challenges of managing flexible integration in an enlarged Union and securing adequate legitimacy for the integration project. Reviewing briefly the general debates on flexibility, and its relationship to different constitutional and political futures for the Union which are suggested by those involved in the debates, the paper examines the principal provisions governing what is termed 'closer cooperation' within the new Union treaties. The emphasis is placed on the framework provisions of the TEU, and those in the First Pillar. It is noticeable that the Treaty takes a 'non-ideological' approach to flexibility, eschewing direct support for those who interpret flexibility as meaning more or less integration in the future. It provides a framework for future cooperation which is likely to be too restrictive to be workable, except in very limited circumstances. However, particular instances of flexibility are provided in the Treaty, in the form of the opt-outs from the new free movement title and the communitarisation of Schengen for the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, and some might even describe these as 'pick-and-choose'. The paper concludes by reviewing the flexibility debate against the background of the ongoing legitimacy challenge for the Union, arguing that, as currently conceived, flexibility is more to do with balancing political interests than with securing or enhancing legitimacy.     

刑罚的正当性探究——从权利出发

刑罚权配置和运作的正当性,应从个体性权利出发进行分析和论证。刑罚的适用即意味着自然人或者单位重大权利的剥夺或者限制,而这类权利应否被剥夺或者限制以及在何种程度上被剥夺或者限制,应通过这类权利的性质来认识和分析。在犯罪设置、刑罚制度方面,都应从个体性权利视角来检验制度、规范和解释结论的正当性。     

去道德化视角下的法正当性问题

德国学者哈贝马斯曾将实践理性的运用途径划分为道德、伦理和实用三种途径。法的正当性与道德的独特联系正源于,与伦理和实用角度的运用相比,实践理性道德角度的运用所产生的规范性资源具有某种特殊的说理性优势。在西方法律思想史中,历史主义与功利主义法哲学分别代表着从伦理与实用的角度看待法正当性问题的最典型学派,而其所面临的问题则从反面说明了,从实践理性的深层结构来看,法与道德的关系问题仍是现代社会法正当性问题的要害,道德话语是建构法正当性无法置换的规范性资源。     

从观念合法性到规则合法性——论近代中学训育部的出现与变革

近代中学训育部在1920年代初较为普遍地出现,至1930年代初,教导部又取代训育部成为一些中学新的训育组织。组织规模扩大和加强训育工作的实际需要,都不是中学普遍设置相应训育组织的根本原因。它只能从合法性影响的角度加以说明。与不同时期的政治结构密切关联,训育部最初出现主要是受观念合法性的影响,教导部的设置则主要受规则合法性影响。虽然,训育组织形式及其影响因素不同,但不同阶段中学的训育组织都存在趋同的现象。这也提醒我们以一种更为审慎的态度,思考当前有关学校特色发展、多样化发展的讨论和探索。     

民事诉讼模式正当性反思——一个实践哲学的视角

诉讼模式转换和变迁的研究提供了对诉讼结构分析的框架,成为民事诉讼理论发展的一个重要基础和前提。但模式应是对诉讼经验和诉讼过程的分类与比较考察,不应前置为可以建构的理论目标和对司法发展的预期,从而架构性的按照单一司法理念来对诉讼模式进行设计。当下民事诉讼的理论发展应超越模式分析的类型学划分,避免诉讼模式的刻意的选择和设计,着重关注司法过程中的主要矛盾、矛盾的主要方面及其现实转化,超越在模式框架下的狭隘的理论建构,从实践合理性的角度完善诉讼结构,形成以实践理性为主导而不是权力话语主导的司法运作格局。     

The Particularities of Legitimacy: John Simmons on Political Obligation

In this paper, I examine the terms on which John Simmons rejects all arguments for a moral obligation to obey the law and so defends “philosophical anarchism.” Although I accept his rejection of several criteria on which others might and often do insist, I criticize his reliance on the conditions of “generality” and “particularity.” In doing so, I propose an alternative to his influential conception of legitimacy.     

The Legitimacy of Law: A Response to Critics*

Abstract
In this paper, the author responds to the claim that his critique of legal positivism, based on an account of adjudication in South Ahica, misses its target because it ignores, first, the positivist thesis of judicial discretion and, secondly, the fact that positivism offers no account of judicial obligation. He argues that these theses expose a tension in positivism between its commitments to liberal individualism and to the supremacy of positive law, a tension which can be resolved only by situating positivism in its true context, the Hobbesian argument for the legitimacy of law. Following Dworkin, he advocates the practice-oriented common law tradition, one that makes the legitimacy of law a matter of standards already implicit in law which are best revealed in adjudication.     

Legitimacy is Not Authority

The two leading traditions of theorizing about democratic legitimacy are liberalism and deliberative democracy. Liberals typically claim that legitimacy consists in the consent of the governed, while deliberative democrats typically claim that legitimacy consists in the soundness of political procedures. Despite this difference, both traditions see the need for legitimacy as arising from the coercive enforcement of law and regard legitimacy as necessary for law to have normative authority. While I endorse the broad aims of these two traditions, I believe they both misunderstand the nature of legitimacy. In this essay I argue that the legitimacy of a law is neither necessary nor sufficient for its normative authority, and I argue further that the need for legitimacy in law arises regardless of whether the law is coercively enforced. I thus articulate a new understanding of the legitimacy and authority of law.