比例原则视角下的社会管理创新

比例原则不仅是行政法的"皇冠原则",而且是社会管理和国家治理的基本原则。该原则要求政府在社会管理中应当注意管理手段与管理目的之间的适当性、必要性和相称性,不能欲治反乱,不能为了某一管理目标而付出极端高昂之成本,不能给人民加诸过重之负担。今天的比例原则已经为全球宪政主义提供了一个"共同的话语",惟有在社会管理和国家治理中尊重和落实该原则,公民权利才能得到有效保护,社会管理才能有条不紊,国家才能和谐稳定。     

比例原则的中国宪法依据新释

比例原则已被全球法治实践反复证明属于人权保障的利剑,必将成为中国合宪性审查的基本标准。为了更好地推进合宪性审查,并消除对比例原则适用范围与功能的误解,有必要探寻比例原则在中国的宪法依据。通过解释我国《宪法》中“权利义务一致性”“基本权利”“人格尊严”“法治国”“征收征用”等条款的尝试,均不能很好或完全地推导出比例原则。比例原则的本质在于调整权力与权利、权利与权利之间的关系,其功能在于合理确定国家权力与公民权利的界限。比例原则内置于权利和权力之中。通过解释我国《宪法》第51条的“权利的限度”条款和第33条第3款的“国家尊重和保障人权”条款,可以得出比例原则在中国具有宪法依据,属于宪法基本原则。     

比例原则适用的争议与反思

当前对比例原则的公私法适用范围、比例原则与成本收益分析的关系、比例原则的逻辑结构等问题存在较大的分歧,甚至存在误解.通过追根溯源考察比例原则的思想起源与全球适用可以发现,比例原则在越来越多的制定法中得到了直接明文或间接隐含规定,法院从"必要性"、"合理限制"、"法治国"、"本质内容"等条款解释出比例原则的情形最为多见.比例原则的本质在于调整手段与目的之间的理性关系,有助于为权力与权利的行使提供合理的尺度.比例原则不仅仅是一个行政法原则,其在公法和私法中都应有更加广阔的适用空间.尽管合比例性分析存在过大的主观性与不确定性,但比例原则具有不可替代的损益权衡功能,其不应也无法被成本收益分析所取代."二阶"说和"三阶"说的比例原则都存在逻辑缺陷,应确立同时评价目的正当性与手段正当性的"四阶"比例原则.     

比例原则的适用范围与限度

比例原则是对限制公民权利的国家权力的限制,其适用需要满足一定的前提条件。比例原则保护的是一种相对权利,审查的是国家权力行使的合理性问题,不可克减的公民权利以及目的正当性不在其适用范围内。比例原则具有独特的内涵和价值功能,没有必要也不应当在民法、刑法等部门法中普遍适用,理应回归行政法这一固有领地。为适应国家任务的多样性,比例原则在关注侵益行政行为的同时,也应当向授益行政行为和互益行政行为的领域拓展,但"最小侵害"的严格标准和"法益均衡"的目标追求,决定了其主要用于规制常态意义下的行政权力行使,在紧急状态中的适用要受到一定限制。     

比例原则审查基准的构建与适用

构建类型化的比例原则审查基准体系,是实现司法能动主义下司法监督功能的现实需要,是克服比例原则的抽象性缺陷以增加司法理性的必然要求。对于行为目的与手段的正当性进行区分强度的司法审查,已成为发展趋势之一。比例原则在我国得到了日益广泛地适用,但大量案件似乎都只是宽松审查。应根据比例原则的规范内涵与逻辑结构,综合考量受侵害权利的属性与种类、侵害的方式与程度、公共利益的属性与种类、事务的专业性程度等因素,构建比例原则的宽松审查、中度审查和严格审查三种审查基准类型。比例原则审查基准的类型化不应成为终极追求目标,法官在个案中的合比例性裁量需要限缩,但不应受到过度挤压。     

中国语境下司法民主的理论建构——基于政治正当性与权力合法性视角

从政治正当性与权力合法性的角度检视新时期人民司法的实践,可以看到,尽管新时期司法民主的理论创新与制度实践所要解决的问题依然是如何有效地建立起中国司法的权威,但是它还需要解决好司法为民、便民的问题.因而,必须明确,中国司法民主的理论建构与司法实践必须在坚持法治与司法职业化的前提下,尽可能地确保社会大众能够理性、有效、适度地参与司法,以便于提高参与司法的便利性,扩大司法的参与性,增强司法的透明性,保持司法的中立性;同时,要坚持司法的法治原则,秉持依法司法的宗旨,遵循司法的程序性、专业性与规律性,通过程序的开放,贯彻司法的责任原则,理性、适度地参与司法活动.唯有此,才能够形成合力与合作,确保司法民主意涵的真正落实,推动司法权威的建成.     

比例原则之规范难题及其应对

比例原则在西方被奉为"帝王条款"。比例原则在实践中面临诸多难题,如究竟何为"正确目的"、何为"最小侵害"、何为"利益均衡"等。比例原则的难题是客观存在的,对其解决必须通过判例制度以及司法实践中不断积累的技术理论来寻求难题之应对方法。     

Theorizing Race and Imprisonment: Towards a New Penality

This article compares historical and contemporary notions of race in France, England and Wales, and the United States, in order to explain each nation's prison population. It seeks to demonstrate how the distinct interpretations and ways of documenting race in each place correspond with an over-representation of specific populations in that nation's prison system. After describing the prison population in each country, the paper analyzes the historical and cultural construction of ideas of race in France. Of particular importance is the Enlightenment and the 19th century love of taxonomy that articulated, mapped and reified Otherness and which is also considered to be the birth of prison and criminology. Thus, the genealogical approach may provide a new understanding of the conceptual and practical interdependence of race and imprisonment, which is then applied to the U.S. and England. This paper aims to help criminologists move beyond merely documenting the over-representation of minorities to critiquing the structures of race and punishment, grounded in colonialism and slavery, that serve to legitimate strategies of social control. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

比例原则释义学结构构建及反思

比例原则作为现代公法上的一个很重要的原则，其释义学结构一般被认为是由三个亚原则构成，即适当性、必要性及狭义比例原则。由于法律原则的抽象性和概括性，对于这三个次要原则，尤其是必要性原则及狭义比例原则的细致内涵还应作一说明，以消除适用时的分歧，而这也是使比例原则能够在实践中得到准确适用的一个基本前提和必要步骤。     

The Radicalization of Democracy: Conflict,Social Movements and Terrorism

The idea of democracy is being championed across the world, with some fifty new countries embracing this type of political system between 1974 and 2011 (Freedom House Anxious dictators, wavering democracies: global freedom under pressure, Freedom House, Washington, 2016). Simultaneously, however, dissatisfaction has grown due to the perceived incapacity of democracy to deal with collective problems, hence the necessity to reconfigure it and redraw some of its principles. This paper links the analysis of the recent evolution of democratic systems with the trajectory of socio-political conflicts and the changing features of contemporary terrorism. It examines, therefore, two intertwined phenomena, namely the radicalization of democracy and the radicalization of the other. It concludes by stressing that encouraging dissent and heeding contentious claims made by social movements may be one way of mitigating both types of radicalization. Embedded in the tradition of critical criminology, this paper attempts to demonstrate that only by outflanking conventional categories of analysis can the criminological community aspire to grasp such thorny contemporary phenomena.     

Nodal Governance, Democracy, and the New 'Denizens'

We begin this paper by reviewing some recent transformations in governance. We then propose three new concepts that we believe assist us in coming to terms with these transformations and the political statuses that have emerged as part of them. These concepts are 'nodal governance', 'denizens', and 'communal space'. Following this we will explore the normative implications of nodal governance as it has taken shape to date, with an emphasis on the 'governance disparity' that is paralleling the 'wealth disparity' across the globe. In response to this disparity, we will end with an outline of a normative vision and practical programme aimed at deepening democracy in poor areas of South Africa, Argentina, and elsewhere. We will argue that the main virtue of nodal governance, namely, the emphasis on local capacity and knowledge can be retrieved, reaffirmed, and reinstitutionalized in ways that enhance the self-direction of poor communities while strengthening their 'collective capital'.     

论法学表达数学化的可能及限度——基于经济学与比例原则的切入

从法律行为与经济学的定义及其实质来分析,法律行为一定是经济行为。由于经济学能够通过边际分析使其自身表达数学化,因而,边际分析也应能成为法学表达数学化的桥梁。任何法律价值的实现,都必然要受到资源稀缺的量化约束,因此,法律价值的通约与权衡成为必要与可能,人权与正义也不例外。当今时代被称为"比例时代",比例原则及其三个子原则既是经济学原则,也是法学强烈要求表达数学化的内在需要。法学表达数学化的可能及限度受效率原则的约束。法学表达数学化能够提高法学的科学性,技术性展示价值观分歧的实质、剔除语义分析的模糊以及修辞对非理性的依赖并遏制变量处理的任意,剔除法学中伪问题,进而寻求更多的社会共识,同时为大数据进入法学提供必要的基础与准备,尽可能对行为进行预测与规制,提高社会发展效率,促进人们更幸福的生活。     

Retributivism,Consequentialism, and the Intrinsic Goodness of Punishment

Retributivism is commonly taken as an alternative to a consequentialist justification of punishment. It has recently been suggested, however, that retributivism can be recast as a consequentialist theory. This suggestion is shown to be untenable. The temptation to advance it is traced to an intrinsic good claim prominent in retributive thinking. This claim is examined, and is argued to be of little help in coping with the difficulties besetting the retributive theory, as well as clashing with a desert claim equally central to that theory.     

A Development of Modest Proportions: The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in the Targeted Killings Case

The comment critically discusses the application of the principleof proportionality by the Israeli Supreme Court in the TargetedKillings case. While the judgment confirms the customary statusof the principle and its applicability to all Israel DefenseForces (IDF) military operations during armed conflicts, itssubstantive contents remain, as might have been expected, unclear.In particular, the application of the ‘least-injuriousalternative’ subtest with regard to all civilians takinga direct part in hostilities is unsubstantiated and perhapstoo sweeping. However, the reference by the Court to ex anteand ex post review mechanisms to monitor the application ofthe proportionality principle constitutes a positive contributionto its development under international humanitarian law, whichmight also have some implications for criminal prosecutionsof soldiers and commanders involved in unlawful targeted killingoperations.     

The Chimera of Proportionality: Institutionalising Limits on Punishment in Contemporary Social and Political Systems

The concept of proportionality has been central to the retributive revival in penal theory, and underlies desert theory's normative and practical commitment to limiting punishment. Theories of punishment combining desert‐based and consequentialist considerations also appeal to proportionality as a limiting condition. In this paper we argue that these claims are founded on an exaggerated idea of what proportionality can offer, and in particular fail properly to consider the institutional conditions needed to foster robust limits on the state's power to punish. The idea that appeals to proportionality as an abstract ideal can help to limit punishment is, we argue, a chimera: what has been thought of as proportionality is not a naturally existing relationship, but a product of political and social construction, cultural meaning‐making, and institution‐building. Drawing on evolutionary psychology and comparative political economy, we argue that philosophers and social scientists need to work together to understand how the appeal of the idea of proportionality can best be realised through substantive institutional frameworks under particular conditions.     

化解新时代社会主要矛盾的财税法思维

新时代社会主要矛盾发生变化,是以人民为中心的发展思想对我国社会主要矛盾作出的新判断和新表述。财税法作为治国安邦之法,与共同富裕目标衔接紧密,是让改革发展成果更公平惠及全体人民的重要法律领域。财税法通过调整和规范政府间财政关系、政府预算和税收制度,回应和化解新时代社会主要矛盾,为加快建立现代财政制度提供道路支撑。新时代财税法思维包括三个方面:一是立足现代化建设和改革发展,提高政府治理能力、法治思维能力并依法拓展财源,建设现代化经济体系;二是渐进推动民主、促进民生福祉,满足人民美好生活需要,建构预算规范、财力协调和区域均衡的财税体制;三是实现分配正义,通过区域、产业和群体之间的财税制度设计和规则安排,促进发展更加平衡更加充分。借助财税法思维化解新时代社会主要矛盾有利于加快国家治理现代化和迈向全面小康的步伐。     

Theorizing about Trial Courts: Lawyers, Policymaking, and Tobacco Litigation

What role do litigation and trial court decisions play in shaping policy? This article explores that question by examining recent litigation against tobacco manufacturers filed by state attorneys general, plaintiff lawyers in class actions, lawyers for cities, unions, health plans, individual smokers, and others. I suggest how this litigation contributed to agenda setting, new ways of defining the problem, of tobacco and the policy alternatives, political mobilization, new legal norms, and new political and legal resources for opponents of tobacco. Addressing theoretical debates about the power of the courts to effect change, I distinguish between causal and constitutive arguments and suggest how both can be incorporated in social analysis.     

原理与遵循:论刑事第三审程序之理性建构

三审制最初的出现更多的是基于对审判经验的总结,尚没有考虑到该制度背后所蕴涵的法学原理,而现代刑事第三审程序的建构应当富有理性。从法理学的角度看,各国刑事第三审程序的建构都体现了对价值平衡原理、权力制约原理、功能分化原理和权利救济原理的遵循。     

坚持以科学发展观为指导 为全面落实依法治国基本方略培养合格法律人才

今天,我们在这里召开浙江警官职业学院荣立司法部集体一等功表彰大会,这对于学习推广先进经验、推进法学教育改革发展具有重要的意义。首先,我代表司法部和吴爱英部长,向学院全体师生员工致以热烈的祝贺!向长期以来关心、支持学院建设和发展的浙江省委、省政府和社会各界表示诚挚的感谢!刚才,浙江省委常委、副省长葛慧君同志代表省委、省政府作了重要讲话,