Procedural goods in a democracy: How one is treated versus what one gets

There are four classes of procedural goods, each of which is an appropriate ground for answering the question: “Is this a fair procedure?” (i) It is unfair not to treat a person with dignity; the dignity goods are self-respect, personal control, and an understanding of the procedures that determine relevant outcomes. (ii) It is unfair to impose upon a person heavy (net) costs, such as overburdened cognitive capacities and high information costs, excessively painful interpersonal conflict, threats beyond those inherent in the situation, and humiliation. (iii) It is unfair to disregard (but not necessarily to violate) the person's own sense of justice, the codes of honor and practice of his own group and culture. And, of course, (iv) it is unfair to use a procedure that does not have the highest probability of achieving distributive or retributive justice. Few of the standard articles of democratic theory (e.g., liberty, equal treatment before the law, rights, and sharing of power) offer sufficient protections for the first three of these procedural goods.     

关于宪法修正案草案与修宪方法的建议

很有必要根据 1999年以来在实践中取得的重要新经验和新认识对现行宪法做如下修改 :在序言中增加两个方面的内容 ;修改第十一、第十二、第十三、第一百二十六等条款和第三章第七节 ;新设第三十五、第四十、第五十一、第三十七、第一百二十三等五个副条。有必要采用国外通行的修宪技术并公布一个宪法的正式文本。     

《中华民国临时约法》的主要缺陷

《中华民国临时约法》拉开了中国近代民主宪政的序幕 ,但历经十余载而归于失败。其失败的原因 ,除了当时政治环境的不利影响以及广大民众的民主意识低下外 ,临时约法本身的缺陷 ,如制定缺乏代表性、行政权力划分与现实政治状况相悖离、权力划分混乱等 ,也是导致其失败的重要原因。临时约法的缺陷及其失败 ,充分昭示了中国从传统专制国家向近代民主国家过渡的进程中所遇到的种种困难。     

Reforming the Market or the State? Article 30 and the European Constitution: Economic Freedom and Political Rights

This article takes as its starting-point the relationship between Article 30 of 30 of the EC Treaty (general rule on the free movement of goods) and the European Constitution. On the one hand, it examines Article 30 in the context of the constitutional dilemmas facing the European Union, particularly the balance of powers to be defined between Member States and the Union, between public power and the market, and between the legitimacy of Community law vis à vis that of national law. On the other hand, it reviews different conceptions of the European Economic Constitution by analysing the role of Article 30 in the review of market regulation.     

全国人大常委会在宪法实施中的创制行为及其界限——以“辽宁贿选案”为例

“辽宁贿选案”发生后,该省人大常委会无法正常开会履职。对此,全国人大常委会决定成立辽宁省十二届人大七次会议筹备组,代行该省人大常委会的部分职权。这被认为是宪法上的创制性安排。全国人大常委会的创制超出了宪法文本,不是宪法解释行为,也不是宪法续造行为,而是宪法建造行为。政治主体在面对宪法僵局时主动实施宪法,建造出民主集中制原则的具体内容和人民代表大会制度的新内涵,有效解决僵局并发展宪法。这并非孤例。全国人大常委会还曾在“总理辞职案”中进行过创制。创制需要符合一定的条件,前提是出现了必须创制的环境、没有可直接适用的宪法规则,方法是按照法定程序作出政治选择,形式是发布决定而非立法。创制具有宪法法律界限和合理性界限。政治主体要选择恰当的宪法原则和制度进行创制,所创制的内容要符合比例原则。创制是全国人大常委会掌握的一种新宪法工具,表明我国宪法实施具有政治主体与宪法互动的特征。     

行政法视域下的正当程序原则探析

行政法中的正当程序原则是指行政权力的运行应当符合最低限度程序公正的标准。它起源于英国自然正义原则,在美国宪法中得以发扬光大,现已成为世界许多国家行政程序的基本原则。程序正当性的评判不应只具有单一价值标准,正当程序既具有工具价值又具有独立价值;正当程序原则的内容包括行政公开、主持者中立、行政参与、说明理由、案卷排他。这项原则在我国行政法治中已得到快速发展,但作为一项基本的法律原则有待于在未来的行政程序法中得以确立。     

自然资源国家所有权三层结构说

宪法上规定的自然资源国家所有权不是专属于公法的所有权概念。它包含三层结构：第一层结构是私法权能。在这一层面上,它与物权法上的所有权无异。第二层结构是公法权能。其主要包括国家对于自然资源的立法权、管理权和收益分配权。第三层结构是宪法义务。国家应当为全体人民的利益行使其私法权能和公法权能。公共信托理论是描述国家作为自然资源所有人的宪法义务的法律理论,应当引入中国,或者对中国宪法第9条作公共信托理论式的解释,确立国家与人民在自然资源国家所有权结构中的地位。在中国的现实中,自然资源国家所有权最为薄弱的层面是其宪法义务。 “自然资源人民基金”的模式和尝试对中国有借鉴意义。宪法规定的自然资源所有权具有“不完全规范”的特质,直接转化为物权法上的物权存在困难。在目前宪法控制制度尚不健全的情况下,民法解释学可以发挥控制自然资源国家所有权肆意扩张和扭曲的准宪法功能。     

Case Comment: The Legality of ‘Kettling’ after Austin

This case comment considers the European Court of Human Rights decision of Austin v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 14. Austin claimed, unsuccessfully, that police kettling at a public protest in London amounted to a violation of her right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. This case comment suggests that the court took an unexpected and unorthodox approach to the issue of ‘deprivation’ within Article 5. This decision may come to undermine the protections afforded by Article 5 and extend the current exceptions to Article 5 to an indefinite range of situations.     

我国民事检察权的权能与程序配置

检察机关在民事程序中的权限通称为民事检察权。我国宪法规定由检察机关行使的法律监督权区分为守法监督权和执法监督权,前者源于社会治理职能,后者源于公权力制约职能。在民事程序法中,执法监督权体现为监督法院审判权的行使而配置的审判监督权和为监督法院执行权的行使而配置的执行监督权,守法监督权体现为监督侵害社会公共利益的违法行为而配置的民事公诉权和为排除当事人和社会干扰法院强制执行而配置的执行协助权或支持执行权。这两类法律监督权的性质、功能、正当性基础均不相同,因此所针对的主体、适用的客体、启动的条件、运行的程序、救济的方式等等也不应相同。据此,为民事检察权相关规定的解释提供了一些理论基础和导向性意见。     

逮捕审查制度的中国模式及其改革

"侦查中由人民检察院批准、决定逮捕",构成逮捕审查制度的中国模式,其理论基础是检察监督理论。定量分析表明,逮捕在我国刑事诉讼中被普遍适用,有违法定逮捕要件,对公正审判与有效辩护造成不利影响;定性分析表明,逮捕被普遍适用的根源在于,享有批准、决定逮捕权的检察机关实为追诉机关,其执行的实体标准、审查程序及"快捕快诉"的追诉性指导思想,挤压了取保候审等羁押替代措施的适用空间。解决逮捕普遍化问题,应依据"互相制约"的宪法原则确立法院审查模式,由法院统一行使逮捕决定权,即在检察机关初次审查的基础上,增加法院审查程序,以制约公安机关、检察机关行使的追诉权,更好地实现保障人权的刑事诉讼目的。     

Frustration: The mold of judicial philosophy

Abstract

The Framers understood the Constitution to be the fundamental expression of the rule of law over against the arbitrary, intemperate, and unjust “rule of men” that all too frequently existed in the political world, unfortunately both democratic as well as monarchical. Accordingly, the rule of law requires a well functioning political and legal system that includes legislative checks and balances, the separation of power between the President and Congress, an independent judiciary, federalism, etc. What happens when this “Madisonian” constitutional system, designed to express “the deliberate sense of the community,” runs into a Judicial branch that, in effect, claims we live under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what we say it is. Must the Judiciary itself be subject to the rule of law, and the decisions of a constitutional majority, or does their “independence” extend to being independent of the constraints of the rule of law and, thus, decent majority rule? How did the original John Marshall Court answer these questions, and what light do the leading cases and controversies shed on the relationship between the Marshall Court and the Madisonian System? Are we facing a situation of Marshall v. Madison?     

European Agencies' Rulemaking: Powers,Procedures and Assessment

This article aims at identifying European agencies' rulemaking powers, mapping the procedures through which such powers are exercised and assessing the existing procedural arrangements. The first section analyses the main forms of European agencies' rulemaking. It shows, on the one hand, that not all European agencies are actually engaged in the adoption of administrative rules, on the other hand, that European agencies carrying out rulemaking activities tend to converge on two specific forms of rulemaking, namely participation in the adoption of binding implementing rules and regulation by soft law. The second section, devoted to mapping the procedures through which rulemaking powers are exercised, argues that the two main types of European agencies' rulemaking cannot be said to be subject to a really common procedural framework. In both cases, the emerging procedural rules implement the same principles of transparency and participation and rely on the same consultation mechanism, sometimes complemented by regulatory impact assessment. Yet, proceduralisation has an uneven development: while the establishment of a procedural discipline is quite common with reference to participation in the adoption of binding implementing rules, regulation by soft law remains largely under‐proceduralised. The last section proposes an assessment of the European agencies' rulemaking procedures. Two main shortcomings are identified: the asymmetry between the tendency to proceduralise the adoption of binding implementing rules and the parallel tendency to keep informal the process of adoption of soft law measures; and the too rudimental development of consultation.     

美国联邦法律中的迅速审判权

迅速审判权是美国宪法第6修正案规定的宪法性权利,也是联邦<迅速审判法>规定的重要诉讼权利.迅速审判的思想起源于英国,后传播至美国并经历了漫长的发展,被认为是"不同于其它宪法权利的基本权利".美国联邦<宪法>和联邦<迅速审判法>是保护迅速审判权的两大主要法源,分别规定了不同的迅速审判权期限要求、衡量审查标准和救济途径,在保护迅速审判权上形成了各具特色的保护模式.但总体来说,迅速审判权的实现并不容易,消除程序拖延目标的实现还需更多的努力.美国迅速审判的立法与司法保护模式对完善我国刑事诉讼立法具有诸多启示.     

The Presumption of Punishment

The presumption of innocence undergirds the American criminal justice system. It is so fundamental that it is derived from the concepts of due process and the importance of a fair trial. An informed, historical understanding of the interaction between the presumption of innocence and key tenets of due process can help clarify the meaning and application of the presumption of innocence in the modern day. Due process, as developed throughout English and US. Colonial history leading up to the formation of the US. Constitution, has two important implications. First, due process provides a general guarantee of liberty against punishment or imprisonment without a fair trial. Second, due process requires that a jury, as opposed to a judge, determine the factual guilt of a defendant at trial. These two key tenets were historically fundamental to due process and should guide how the presumption of innocence impacts various stages of trial, including pretrial detention decisions and sentencing. Returning to a historical understanding of due process requires that judges not determine facts or punish individuals before a trial has occurred.     

自由权的受益权功能之省思——以住宅自由的功能为例

住宅自由属于典型的自由权,虽然它也有些许受益权的功能,但并不能从中解读出国家帮助公民获得住宅的义务。自由权的受益权功能理论产生于德国基本法的特定背景之下,并不符合我国宪法的基本权利理论。它混淆了权利与权利的条件,也没有我国宪法文本上的依据。     

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.     

The Right to Representation by Criminal Defense Counsel in Ethiopia: A Critical Analysis

This paper explores and critically reflects on the legal foundations and the practice of criminal defense in Ethiopia within the overall due process framework of a fair criminal trial. A brief review of Ethiopian constitutional history shows that the right to representation by legal counsel has been one of the fundamental due process rights granted to accused persons in criminal proceedings. The constitutional right to counsel is, however, not specified by detailed legal provisions. A logical consequence of this is that the enjoyment of this right is fraught with legal and practical problems. While the legal problems, among other things, include obscurity regarding the scope and content of the right, the practical problems include absence of public defense offices at district levels where the vast majority of criminal proceedings take place. Consequently, accused persons appear during trials without the aid of legal counsel; they are in fact deprived of their due process rights and marginalized. This has a number of legal ramifications both to the accused and the criminal justice system. In sum, the constitutional provision of the right to criminal defense counsel is undelivered and remains a hollow promise. It is therefore difficult to uphold the constitutional norms which underlie criminal trial process such as procedural justice, as well as the legitimacy of the government. The justice sectors are responsible to ensuring due process and equal protection. Substantial justice reforms are needed at all levels.     

Why Fair Procedures Always Make a Difference

Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (as inserted by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015) requires judges to refuse relief in judicial review of administrative decisions if it is ‘highly likely’ that the conduct complained of did not make a significant difference to the outcome of the decision. The strongest justification for this ‘Makes No Difference’ principle is provided by a ‘narrow instrumental view’ of fair procedures, according to which their value lies only in their producing the correct outcome. This conception of procedural fairness, however, is impoverished and flawed as a matter of political morality. Fair procedures reflect a conception of citizens as participants in their own governance and play an important communicative role in democratic legal orders. Inasmuch as it leaves no room for these aspects of the value of fair procedures, the Makes No Difference principle embodied in section 31(2A) is pro tanto unjust.     

Impact of procedural factors on perceived justice in divorce settlements

We used a decision-making conceptual framework from family resource management combined with procedural justice frameworks from social psychology to (i) articulate the elements and rules of procedural fairness, (ii) develop a theoretical organization and code to include procedural fairness principles as applied to legal decision processes in divorce, and (iii) describe the perceptions of divorcing parties about the violations of procedural fairness principles in their own divorce process. Procedural fairness principles included accuracy, consistency, ethicality, bias suppression, correctability, and representativeness. Results of qualitative data analyses were consistent with experimental studies in that divorced people were concerned with fair procedures and particularly with violations of the principles of ethicality, consistency, accuracy, and representativeness.     

论刑事司法权利的宪法保护

公民受刑事追究时享有一系列程序性权利 ,涉及人身自由和安全的保障 ,属于基本人权范畴。此类权利应当具有防范国家司法权力侵害的防御功能 ,因此仅仅通过刑事诉讼法予以确定和保护是不够的 ,还应当由宪法加以确定和保障。保障公民的刑事司法权利应当是尊重和保障人权的核心内容。借鉴各国宪法的规定以及有关国家宪法实践 ,我国应当完善公民刑事程序权利宪法保护。