The New Legal Realism and The Realist View of Law

New legal realism (NLR) furthers the legal realist legacy by focusing attention on both the pertinent social science and the craft that typifies legal discourse and legal institutions. NLR's globalized ambitions also highlight the potential of a nonstatist view of law. The realist view of law raises three challenges facing NLR: identifying the “lingua franca” of law as an academic discipline within which NLR insights on translation and synthesis should be situated; conceptualizing NLR's focus on bottom‐up investigation, so that it does not defy the rule of law; and recognizing the normative underpinning for NLR's reformist impulse.     

New Legal Realism and the Ethnography of Transnational Law

The new legal realism builds on the strengths of the legal realism of the early twentieth century, viewing law as a set of social processes embedded in historical and political contexts. As it addresses sociolegal phenomena of the early twenty-first century, however, the new legal realism is more attentive to the effects of transnationalism, legal culture, and legal consciousness, and the way ideas and norms travel and are adopted around the world. Asking questions of this kind requires new, more multi-sited or deterritorialized methods of scholarship. This article explores these new perspectives and their methodologies through an examination of the use of human rights in the international movement against violence against women.     

Directives in EU Legal Systems: Whose Norms Are They Anyway?

This article is concerned with whether the concept of a legal system—long a centrepiece of state‐based legal theories—is a useful conceptual tool in theorising the contemporary EU and its legal relations with its Member States. The focus lies particularly with EU directives, and with what the character and operation of this distinctive type of EU norm can tell us as regards the existence of and relations between legal systems in the EU. I argue for the view that the EU is comprised of distinct but interacting legal systems at EU and national level, and claim that the character and operation of directives supports this view. Throughout the discussion I try to bring the conceptual tools of analytical legal philosophy to bear on puzzles generated by EU law and its relations with national law, in order to show that a sound analysis of aspects of the EU can benefit from abstract legal philosophical reflection, and vice versa.     

作为概念的“经济法”——聚焦于“经济法”语词的多视角研究

“经济法”是经济法学中最重要的基本概念。“经济法”的概念研究是经济法学总论研究的重要课题之一。对作为概念的“经济法” ,从学术史、语言学和逻辑学等视角进行了语词缘起、范畴定位和文字训诂等三个方面探讨 ,并为经济法本体论和经济法学科论的基本范畴研究提供了相应的思路、方法和理论基础。     

行政法上的不确定法律概念

行政法学通说基于传统的价值导向思考,主张行政机关对不确定法律概念的解释适用应受全面的司法审查,例外时才享有判断余地;且判断余地与行政裁量有质的区别。这一观点虽然价值正确但融贯性不足,且不符合法律实践规律。法理学汲取语言哲学、道德分析哲学的营养所展开的研究表明,价值导向思考所立足的唯一正确答案预设是一个不能证成的本体论虚构。不确定法律概念的不确定性出现且仅出现于语言规则的尽头(临界案件);在语言规则的尽头,行政机关应在法律框架内追加价值判断(履行个别情况考虑义务),来决定是否将该概念适用于个案事实。不确定法律概念与行政裁量的二元论和一元论都包含着部分真理,而在整体上以偏概全。     

Sources of Law Are not Legal Norms

Anglo‐American authors have paid little attention to a subtle distinction that has important jurisprudential implications. It is the distinction between sources of law (e.g., statutes, precedents, customs) and the legal norms which can be derived from sources by means of interpretation. The distinction might also be rendered as a threefold one, separating sources of law from legal norms and both of these from that which mediates their relation, namely, methods of legal interpretation. This paper intends to state the “source‐norm” distinction clearly and to give examples of jurisprudential insights that are missed, and mistakes that may be made if the distinction is not given its due.     

新法律现实主义的勃兴与当代中国法学反思

本文从对美国“新法律现实主义”的评介入手,简要分析了当代法与社会研究中的现实主义立场和方法及其在世界范围的发展与意义,在此基础上对我国当代法治理念及法学中存在的问题进行反思,以提倡一种以经验(实证)研究为基本方法、从事实和具体问题出发、以解决问题为目标的现实主义法学研究方法和立场。     

Children's Law: Toward a New Realism

The realist approach that has dominated American jurisprudence has long had especially great acceptance in regard to children's issues. Ironically, however, decision making on such topics has seemed to be particularly unlikely to be informed by careful assessments of social reality. Symbolism has prevailed over pragmatism. Psycholegal research on children's issues has also often been misdirected. Application of the Convention on the Rights of the Child may point the way to more psychologically minded children's law.     

诉讼法律规范的规范化与执法规范化建设——加强执法规范化建设的一个新视角

一、执法规范化建设的内涵与途径 执法规范化,即执法活动、执法行为的规范化,其根本目的在于通过规范执法行为,促进严格、公正、文明执法。执法规范化建设,主要是指为规范执法行为、促进执法公正而开展的执法思想建设与执法制度建设。其范围主要涉及人民法院、人民检察院、公安机关、监狱等政法系统的单位、部门的职权诉讼活动和行政执法活动。     

法学研究中的价值处理

价值法学本身经历了重内容、重形式、重程序、程序与内容并重的进化路径。重内容的法学是价值法学的中坚 ,但是以启蒙理性为特色的片面的重内容的法学却极易走向自己的反面———价值独断与极权。法学研究中的形式转向是法的一般理论从法哲学中分化出来的前提 ,但极端形式主义最终导致价值相对主义甚至道德相对主义 ,是法律灾变的理论诱因。重程序的法理学是结合形式与内容的枢纽 ,但片面的重程序也会导致价值无涉。考夫曼的程序与内容并重的法理学代表了 2 1世纪法理学发展的方向     

刑法概念的法哲学问题

刑法的概念既重要又危险,而如何使其科学化却是被忽视了的法哲学问题。从刑法与道德和政治的关系出发,能够为重新理解刑法的概念开辟新路径。任何时代的刑法都是自己时代的公共道德与政治权力相互结合的产物,只不过由于政治权力的性质不同,这种结合方式亦会不同。现代刑法应具有对公共道德与公共政治进行双向控制的功能,而刑法生活是刑法道德基因所存在、表现的基本场域,回到刑法生活才是尊重和确证刑法之道德基因的基本途径。     

从社会事实到法律规范——作为社会实践的法律

为什么要遵守法律?一种法哲学传统认为是由于法律所内蕴的自然、神谕、理性及道德等内容,而法律实证主义则认为法律本身就是行动的理由,并试图将法律的规范性溯源至主权者创制法律的行为这一社会事实.因此,它的一个理论任务就是论证如何从社会事实推出法律规范.边沁、奥斯丁与哈特都分别进行了努力,但都各有缺陷.而如果以承认规则作为理论工具.以社会成规论与共担合作性行动理论作为运思资源,就可以很好地论证出社会实践如何产生法律规则,从而为这个法哲学的元命题提供一个具有解释力的说明.     

环境法律观检讨

当前环境法学表象繁荣的背后隐藏着专业性不强的危机,其根源在于较为落后的法律观。在一些环境法理论中作为言说基础和前提预设的“法”与作为现代法治基础的“法”存在较大差异,具体表现为法律道德主义色彩浓厚、与科学规律界限不明、主体性缺失、孤立立法、与传统法的关系失当五个方面。法律观偏失的环境法学研究在实践中只起到思想启蒙的作用,无助于环境法治的实现。要想获得理论提升和实践突破,环境法学必须对自己的核心任务和研究范围作出准确定位,牢牢把握法的本质特征,加强本土化研究,尊重现行法,采取现实主义思维,实现向法学的回归。     

The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism

Abstract.  The jurisprudential movement known as Scandinavian Legal Realism was founded by the Swedish philosopher Axel Hägerström and the Danish philosopher and jurist Alf Ross in order to destroy the distorting influence of metaphysics upon legal thinking and to provide the secure philosophical foundation for scientific knowledge of the law. I shall present Hägerström's philosophical theory and argue that he is committed to the metaphysical view that the world in time and space consists of causal regularities between things and events devoid of any values that is related to his epistemological view that what there is can be known by experience. Hägerström's philosophy advances a naturalistic approach that conceives the positive law as a system of rules in terms of behavioural regularities among human beings and legal knowledge as an empirical inquiry into the causal relations between legal rules and human behaviour. This approach is followed by his pupils, the Swedish lawyers A. V. Lundstedt and Karl Olivecrona, whereas Ross appeals to logical positivism. The naturalistic approach should be taken seriously since it leaves no room for the normativity of the law and for legal knowledge in terms of reasons for belief and action.     

司法裁判中法律事实与法律规范的关系

目前,学界关于司法裁判中法律事实与法律规范关系的论述,可以概括为以下四种推论关系、归类与涵摄关系、等置关系、评价关系。这四种方法在司法判决中各有其作用,但是学者们往往各执一端,将四者割裂开来。而实际上,逻辑推论关系确保了推理形式的正确性,而价值评价则保障了推理的实质合理性,归类与涵摄关系重点关注的是法律推理大小前提如何结合的问题,而等置关系似乎可以作为衡量归类或涵摄是否妥当的一个检测器。司法裁判中将四者有机结合起来,才能保证判决的合法性。     

后现代主义与加拿大的新现实主义法学

20世纪80年代以来,后现代主义在西方蓬勃发展并对加拿大法学理论界产生影响,形成了加拿大的新现实主义法学。这种法学包含了女权主义法学理论、批判种族主义法学理论、原住民法学理论、同性(双性)恋法学理论和批判残疾人法学理论等形态。     

经济法法律责任:语义、规范及其整体谱系——基于法律文本的实证分析

经济法法律责任是经济法主体违反经济法法律所应承担的不利后果,是经济法违法行为的代价与成本,是实施经济法的关键。对60部经济法法律进行考察,可以发现法律责任条款在其中的分布呈总体集中、少量分散状态,对其进行文本梳理与实证分析,可以基本洞明违法行为与法律责任形式这两大经济法法律责任的规范要件。经济法违法行为有列举式与集束式两种表述方式,总体上以集束式为主、列举式为补充。经济法违法行为可区分为作为式违法行为与不作为式违法行为。经济法法律责任形式可以从具体与抽象两个角度进行划分,经济法法律中的具体法律责任形式有28种,其中7种为新类型法律责任形式。经济法法律责任总体上呈现综合性及以财产责任为主导、与行为责任相结合的基本特征。就经济法法律责任的配置而言,需要根据经济法违法行为的社会危害程度,通过二次分配的方式实现经济法法律责任的有序组合,具体表现为以违法行为是否构成犯罪为界限,以行为主体的身份性质为补充,辅以时间、情节与行为人态度等因素,梯次配置相应的法律责任。     

The Application of International Legal Norms Over Time: The Second Branch of Intertemporal Law

Intertemporal law governs the applicability of international legal norms ratione temporis. According to often used terminology, intertemporal law has two different branches. This article provides clarification of the so-called ‘second branch of intertemporal law’. It does so by refuting two commonly held assumptions. First, as established in section 2 of the article, the second branch of intertemporal law is not an exception to the first branch of that law. It cannot be, since both branches of intertemporal law centre on the same legal principle: an action or a factual state of affairs must be assessed in the light of the law which is contemporary with it. Secondly, as implicated by the line of reasoning in section 2, and further confirmed by the inferential evidence cited in section 3, the practical relevance of the second branch of intertemporal law is not confined to the application of the law on the acquisition to territory. It pertains to a more widely defined group of norms in international law.