裁判与法律

法院对被告溯及性地课加新的法律责任,是可以与正义和法治相容的.但其实法官并不需要区分他是在课加一个新的责任,还是在执行争议事件发生时被告本就已有的责任.通过探究下述问题就可区分二者:在判决之前,法律体系的各种制度已经将哪种法院判决理由委托给了法院去据以采取行动?本文通过评判H.L.A.哈特和罗纳德·德沃金的最后一次论战来解释这些结论.     

Habermas and Deleuze on Law and Adjudication

This article stages an encounter between Habermas and Deleuze on law, rights, and adjudication. Most of the article is spent developing Habermas’s concept of adjudication as the application of communicatively generated norms. This application, I argue, involves a complex temporality that is at once retrospective and non-creative. Deleuze is used to critique this concept of adjudication in favor of one based on concrete situations and the creation of new problems. In so doing, I will develop Deleuze’s notorious, and notoriously hostile, remarks on human rights and philosophies of communication by relating them to discourse ethics and to the positive conception of law and judgment that can be drawn from his work.

论刑事司法中行为时法、中间法与裁判时法的适用

一、问题的提出 行为时法、中间法、裁判时法的适用问题属于刑法的时间效力问题或溯及力问题。从旧兼从轻原则、不溯及既往原则,是刑法界比较熟悉的刑法时间效力原则,是处理犯罪行为时和犯罪裁判时法律不一致情况下的法律适用原则,这是新旧两法的选择适用问题。但在近期的刑事司法实践中,因涉及适用刑法修正...     

枉法仲裁罪思辨——仲裁性质两分法与比较法下的考量

枉法仲裁罪的设立是有利有弊、且基本上利大于弊的,但利弊之争并非问题的关键所在.关于枉法仲裁罪的争议,最关键的问题还是在仲裁的性质上.运用仲裁性质的两分法,可发现仲裁责任属于仲裁的外部关系、应主要从司法性来考量.仲裁的外部关系及其司法性,决定了枉法仲裁罪的设立其本身是合理的.运用比较法可发现,枉法仲裁罪的设立并非是对尊重仲裁的国际惯例的违背,相反,这是在贯彻这一原则性的国际惯例的基础上,结合本国实际情况和需要所采取的合理的具体措施.枉法仲裁罪的设立在短期内仅有较小的消极影响,而从长远来看,枉法仲裁罪的存在不会对中国国际商事仲裁的发展带来消极影响.     

Interpreting the Basic Law and the Adjudication of Politically Sensitive Questions

In this paper, I shall essentially lay out five interpretiveprinciples that the Hong Kong judiciary should observe. First,the Hong Kong judiciary can disable themselves from giving effectto National People's Congress (NPC) Acts that are inconsistentwith the Basic Law. Second, the Court of Final Appeal has aduty to make a reference to the NPC's Standing Committee (NPCSC)when it needs to adjudicate over two conflicting Basic Law provisions,one whose affairs fall within the Central Government's concernsand the other which falls within the limits of Hong Kong's autonomy.Third, in reading the text of the NPCSC Interpretation narrowlywhile observing its central tenor, the Court would be respectingthe plenary interpretive mandate conferred on the NPCSC whileretaining its role as the primary interpreter of the Basic Law.Fourth, so far as a Mainland National Law has been formallyincorporated into the Basic Law, it cannot be deemed in violationof another constitutional clause. Finally, I would argue thatnot all constitutional affairs falling within the limits ofHong Kong's autonomy are automatically justiciable; where thereis a textual commitment to a coordinate branch of government,the Court may only interfere with the decisions made by thepolitical branches on traditional grounds of judicial review,i.e. illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.     

论社会法责任与裁判的特殊性

社会法在调整法律关系中既维护特定当事人的合法权益,又着眼于全社会的整体利益的维护.而且,是以维护社会利益为根本特征,在维护社会利益的前提下平衡双方当事人的权利与利益.它不同于以国家权力为本位的行政法,也有别于以个体权利为本位的民商法,是在以社会公共利益为本位的前提下形成的、具有"公私混合法"的相对独立法域.由此,社会法上的责任与裁判都具有不同于其他法律的特殊性.     

商法的独立性与商事审判的独立化

商事审判独立化既是商法独立性的必然要求和主要标志,同时也是实现商法独立性的重要保障,没有商事审判的独立化就没有真正意义上的商法独立。实现商事审判独立化的关键首先在于确立独立的商事审判理念,这些理念主要包括重效率的审判理念、侧重动态保护和强调利益均衡的审判理念、尊重当事人意思自治的审判理念及促进商事交易效率与安全并重的理念等。在商事审判程序的具体设计上,应当在充分把握商事审判特殊性的基础上,建立独立的法官队伍并对法官的自由裁量权做出必要限制,注重法院司法能动性的发挥,确立商事惯例和商事判例作为法律渊源的地位和作用,注意发挥诉讼替代程序在商事纠纷争议解决中的作用,强化诚信原则在商事裁判中的独特作用,充分尊重国际惯例在商事审判中的作用。     

The Experiences and Challenges for Adjudication on Refugee Law in Slovenia

As a border country within the European Union, Slovenia willprobably need to manage a considerable burden of refugee lawcases in the future. In addition to the goal of managing thosecases promptly, judicial review will continue to play a crucialrole in building the integrity of procedural and material lawon the protection of refugees. The article first focuses, insection 2, on several refugee law issues from national legislation,supported by case law, with special attention to a comparisonof national legislation with the corresponding EU legal sourcesin their respective fields and other international law standards.On the basis of a qualitative assessment of judgements, in section3 the author provides an evaluation of the experiences and effectsof the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court and the ConstitutionalCourt in the construction of (case) law on refugees. Findingsin section 3 lead the author to the basic thesis, in section4, that the major challenge for adjudication on refugee law,which is an example of a very complex legal discipline, establishedwithin the multi-level constitutionalism, is to improve theinstitutional quality of the judiciary. In this regard the authorselects six priorities for building on the managerial capacitiesof the judiciary that are necessary mechanisms for dealing withthe increasing number of important international refugee lawissues in the future, so that the integrity of asylum law, theharmonisation of EU law and the protective character of internationalrefugee law in Slovenia is guaranteed. In the conclusion ofthe paper, the author selects the particular legal challengesfor judges in the future process of adjudication on refugeelaw.     

实现宪法司法化，建设现代法治国家

;宪法是我国的根本大法,规定着国家的根本制度和根本任务,但其高度的概括性、抽象性和浓厚的政治色彩使其在实际中缺乏操作性而常常被"虚置".宪法司法化必将有助于强化宪法效力,维护宪法权威,它是依法治国,建设现代法治国家的必然要求.     

论经验法则在司法裁判中的运行——基于认知科学的实证研究

经验法则,是指依据经验归纳出的,关于事物属性及事物间常态联系的知识。在纷繁复杂的案件审判中,大量的证据材料、线索或主张会不断的出现,法官难以对所有的信息进行全面理性的分析与裁断。此时,就需要借助认知图式来对某些信息做出直觉式的快速判断,并引导进一步的调查,包括启发推理与类比推理。法官在司法裁判中基于经验法则的运用所可能产生的认知偏差,不仅体现在基于主客观原因所导致的认知图式的错误套用,也体现在基于法官职业所形成的认知图式的偏滑。在认知科学方面,法官应该接受一些基本的思维训练。在法律控制方面,则应该完善法官选任制度、保障法官充分接受原始证据,探索分段式审理。     

商事仲裁视野下的枉法裁决罪

全国人大常委会通过<刑法修正案(六)>,规定了枉法裁决罪.该条文具有规范仲裁活动、维护仲裁市场、推进仲裁发展的积极作用.但其在内容和影响上均存在诸多值得置疑之处.其内容,在主体方面,存在主体范围不明确、主体定性与<仲裁法>冲突、共同犯罪时可能推导出不合情理结论的问题;在客观要件方面,存在条文措辞有误、与有关立法存在逻辑矛盾、与国际法原则存在冲突、不符合仲裁法律适用原则和趋势、无法协调与合意裁决关系的问题.其影响,存在引起法院监督权小当扩张,动摇仲裁基础;变相赋予法院实体审查权,导致我国违背国际条约义务;缺乏科学性,破坏仲裁市场;错误定性,危害我国仲裁声誉的不良影响.为保证和推进仲裁的健康发展,应从仲裁刑事责任、仲裁民事责任、仲裁行业规范三方面入手,构建完整有效的仲裁责任制度.     

韩国的行政审判法(下)——解说与全译

(代理人的选任 )第 1 4条　请求人在法定代理人之外 ,可选任符合以下各项规定的人士为代理人。( 1 )请求人的配偶、直系尊亲属、卑亲属或者兄弟姐妹 ;( 2 )作为请求人的法人的管理人员或者职员 ;( 3)律师 ;( 4 )其他法律规定的可以代理审判请求的人士 ;( 5 )不符合第 1项至第 4项的规定 ,但是得到委员会许可的人士。2 被请求人可选任所属职员或符合第 1款第 3项至第 5项规定的人士为代理人。3 有第 1款或者第 2款规定的情形的 ,准用第 1 1条第 3款以及第 5款的规定。(代表人等的资格 )第 1 5条　代表人、管理人、选定代表人或者代理人的资…     

韩国的行政审判法(上)——解说与全译

韩国于1984年12月15日废止了到那时为止一直适用的<诉愿法>,制定了<行政审判法>,作为与日本的行政不服审查法相当的法律,并于次年1985年开始施行.此后,这部法律经过数次修改,直至今日.在韩国,本法取得了所预期的成果,为韩国的民主化作出了巨大的贡献.也许正因为这个原因,该法在日本也受到了人们的重视,比如总务厅委托(财)行政管理研究中心进行研究而组织的"事后救济制度调查研究委员会"②(委员长是东京大学小早川光郎教授),除了美国、英国,德国、澳大利亚、法国、瑞典之外,还选择了韩国的行政审判法作为比较的对象,笔者亦在该委员会就韩国的行政审判法作过简单的报告.     

枉法仲裁罪追诉方式之变更及其提倡——兼论仲裁责任的流转与刑事责任的确立

仲裁责任制度经历了不断延伸与变更的历史过程,即仲裁契约责任--法律责任--豁免责任--有限民事责任--刑事责任的流转形态.从仲裁责任的演进和不断修正中可以得出两点结论:其一,仲裁行为以契约性基础特质作为其存在基础;其二,仲裁行为倡导"公正优先,兼顾效益"的价值选择,为刑事责任的确立预留了空间.因此,结合以上理论基点透视刑法修正案中的枉法仲裁罪,既要承认其刑事责任确立的客观性,又要探究契合仲裁行为自身契约性的运行机制.然而,由于枉法仲裁罪的追诉方式在理论与实践上存在难以克服的诸多弊端,设立非纯正的亲告罪应是反思之后的理性选择.     

枉法仲裁罪的立法正当性探讨

仲裁的性质、枉法仲裁的社会危害性、设立该罪对仲裁业的影响等因素与枉法仲裁的犯罪化问题没有必然联系,不能作为论证枉法仲裁应否入罪的理由。对于枉法仲裁的犯罪化起决定作用的,是立法背后各种政治力量的博弈,此外还要考虑社会危害性、刑罚的预防功能以及立法平等原则等因素。对于枉法仲裁罪的罪状应予修改,应取消"依法承担仲裁职责的人员"的规定。     

公司自治与裁判宽容——新《公司法》视野下的裁判思维

新<公司法>秉持自由主义的逻辑,对公司进行松绑.此种立法逻辑要求司法者调整长期以来的管制主义裁判思维,坚持裁判宽容.裁判宽容要求在审理公司法案件时,充分尊重股东自治和公司自治;谨慎解释自治与强制的界限,理解强制性规范设定的基准,理解公司法并非推行公共政策的合适领域;法官要充分尊重公司的商业判断,不对公司实体营运过多干预;公司诉讼要采取更为宽缓和灵活的方式,有些案型要将调解设置为必经程序,有些案型要主动压缩审理周期.     

先决问题与中间裁判

目前我国对于先决事项的司法判定在形式、程序、效力、救济途径等方面的空白或缺陷已严重困扰司法实践,特别是随着诉讼模式改革的日渐深化,当事人辩论权的控制力与司法效率的强大压力从两个相向的方向上对裁判权形成挤压。通过解析德国和法国等大陆法系国家中间裁判制度,将其中间裁判的适用对象分解为实体性先决事项、程序性先决事项和攻击防御事项,进而在我国民事裁判体系——判决、裁定和决定——的整体框架中,讨论上述三类事项的决定形式。最后重点讨论了实体性先决事项的中间裁判制度,及其与我国现有基本理论和现行制度的协调问题。     

Legal Pluralism and the Adjudication of Internet Disputes

No single entity-academic, corporate, governmental or non-profit-administers the Internet. (American Civil Liberties Union v Reno \[E.D. Pa. 1996] 929 F. Supp. 824, 832) The problems of regulation on the Internet are simply stated. First, it allows novel activities: e-mail, electronic discussion groups, simple transfer or viewing of text, images, sound and video. These activities may fall foul of laws of obscenity or defamation in some or all of the jurisdictions in which it is available. Second, the Internet is a distributed system that straddles geographical and jurisdictional boundaries; the regulation of such activities is likely to fall within two or more national 'legal' jurisdictions. It may therefore be difficult to choose an appropriate jurisdiction. Third, the inevitable need to choose a jurisdiction will mean that the values to be imposed upon the dispute will be the values of that jurisdiction, values that may be different from the values of those involved in the dispute. Much has been written on the first two problems and significant developments have been made in the formulation of principles to be applied to the problem of choosing a jurisdiction. In this paper, I will begin to focus on the third problem, the problem of inappropriate values being imposed upon Internet behaviour. The paper will develop the theme that the need for a single jurisdiction and, in consequence, the need for a single set of values to be imposed upon Internet activities is a fiction born out of centralist systems of western jurisprudence. The paper will review how courts have turned against pluralistic approaches in the past when dealing with clashes in cultural and religious values, particularly the clash in the English courts in the case of Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses'. Western courts have been dismissive of cultural and religious claims either treating them as 'repugnant' or contrary to public policy, or else questioning the validity of the motives of the applicants. It is evident from recent cases in the US, that judges will use similar techniques to impose their own value values upon Internet activity. The concept of legal pluralism is not recognised within westernised systems of law. The paper will then consider whether a more pluralistic strategy would provide a more satisfactory approach to dealing with such disputes on the Internet: an approach that would enable the resolution of the conflict between different cultural and religious values.     

论司法裁判的合法性

司法裁判的合法性是司法裁判权运作的基础和前提条件 ,司法裁判的合法性为司法裁判活动提供了正当性理由。现代法治理论中有关司法裁判合法性问题的理论存在不足之处。对人们司法裁判合法性信仰的最大威胁来自司法专横和腐败。