契约的正义——读《法律、立法与自由》札记

通过对哈耶克自由主义法律理论的解读,笔者提出了一种理解契约正义的思想理路。即在自由主义的视域中,自由是正义的核心价值,正义实为对人的意志本身的评价,而不能从行为结果衡量,因此,不管缔约人追求的具体目的如何,我们应以缔约人意志的自由状态作为评价契约是否符合正义的基本标准;普遍的契约自由的实现有赖于法律的保障,缔约意志实为其内在动机与外在法律互动的结果,唯有以契约法为核心的私法具有保障契约自由普遍实现的功能品性,因此,所谓契约正义实为缔约人依私法自由缔约的契约本身。     

Criminal Justice and the Liberal Polity

There are several reasonable conceptions of liberalism. A liberal polity can survive a measure of disagreement over just what constitutes liberalism. In part, this is because of the way a liberal order makes possible a dynamic, heterogeneous civil society and how that, in turn, can supply participants with reasons to support a liberal political order. Despite the different conceptions of justice associated with different conceptions of liberalism, there are reasons to distinguish the normative focus of criminal justice from other aspects of justice in a liberal polity. Given the fundamental commitments of liberalism—of whatever variant—there are reasons for criminal justice not to be assimilated to wider conceptions of justice overall. Such assimilation risks undermining some of liberalism's distinctive commitments concerning the standing of individuals as voluntary, responsible agents. Criminal justice is not independent of other aspects of justice but has a distinct focus in a liberal polity.     

The Concept of Liberty in "A Theory of Justice" and Its Republican Version

Abstract. The Author offers three interpretations of the Rawlsian conception of liberty. At the same time he compares this formal version of civil and political liberty with the substantive version produced by the republican theory of liberty. The first question is this: Can liberties be unequal? Here the liberal concept of liberty is discussed linking human will of liberty and equality. The second question is: Can liberties be equal when their respective values are not? The Author stresses the Rawlsian distinction between liberty and the value of liberty showing the risk of reducing the less powerful to dependency. The third question is: Can political liberty be limited for the sake of personal liberties? From a republican perspective the answer to the Rawlsian instrumental conception of political liberty is that all personal liberties are necessarily founded on political liberty.*     

路径与选择：司法公正的实现

[编者按] 江泽民同志在党的十六大报告中指出：“社会主义司法制度必须保障在全社会实现公平和正义。按照公正司法和严格执法的要求，完善司法机关的机构设置、职权划分和管理制度，进一步健全权责明确、相互配合、相互制约、高效运行的司法体制。从制度上保证审判机关和检察机关依法独立公正地行使审判权和检察权。完善诉讼程序，保障公民和法人的合法权益。”为配合这一战略决策的实现，本刊特邀复旦大学法学院诉讼法研究中心、清华大学法学院以及中国政法大学的部分专家、学者，就司法公正的实现进行专题论证，并希望借此方式进一步繁荣关于司法公正的理论研究。     

群体诉讼与司法局限性-以证券欺诈民事集团诉讼为例

群体纠纷人数众多,法院采取某种形式的合并审理,使一个司法判决对多数人具有约束力成为一个不可避免的选择。然而,随着判决约束人数的增加,不但诉讼代表者越来越有可能脱离法院和多数当事人的控制,而且伴随着司法裁决涉及利益的纬度、参与社会决策和资源分配的社会功能的不断扩大,司法所固有的局限性就越发凸现出来。诸如证券欺诈诉讼等群体诉讼是否能够采用集团诉讼模式,首先不是一个理论构建或者如何和本国民事诉讼法相衔接的技术问题,而更多的是一个司法政策问题。     

调解、诉讼与公正——对现代自由社会和儒家传统的反思

调解作为一种解决纷争的做法和制度 ,是我国传统法律文化尤其是儒家法律文化的重要部分。在现代法治社会中 ,调解否已经过时 ?本文首先介绍中国的调解传统的哲学基础、理论和实践 ,然后从现代自由主义和法治理想的角度 ,对传统的调解提出批判。本文进而指出 ,调解在当代的中国以至西方仍有顽强的生命力 ,西方学者对调解作为“解决纠纷的另类选择”之一提出了多种理论依据 ,其中不少与儒家传统的睿见不谋而合。本文的结论是 ,经过“创造性转化”后的调解理论与实践能对现代文明作出贡献 ,由此可见 ,传统文化遗产在现代仍是十分宝贵和有用的资源。     

Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror: Reflections from Criminal Justice

Post-9/11 the equilibrium between security and liberty has been subject to intense political and philosophical interrogation. The metaphor of balance, although perilous, is so pervasive as to demand scrutiny of what lies in the scales, what tips them, and in whose interest. Though international and constitutional lawyers have dominated the debate about balance, the experience of criminal justice suggests that articulating a principled approach provides greater prospects of protecting rights against unwarranted erosion. This more modest approach imposes structural and procedural safeguards through the twin engines of judicial oversight and unremitting defence of due process. In this way it may be possible to enhance collective security against terrorism without diminishing individual security against the state.     

调解诉讼公正--对现代自由社会中儒家思想的思考

任何社会中,对因个人争端而引起的冲突存在着不同的解决途径。诉讼仅是由避免发展到暴力等诸多可能性的一种选择。解决争端的多样性以及任一文化中存在的多种社会制约力的选择,使得人们把自己的理想、对自身的透视以及各种关系的特质与他人联系起来。它们表明,人们是希望避免冲突、抑或鼓励冲突,是克制抑或友好解决。在解决争端的过程中,最基本的社会价值得以最终体现。——杰罗德·思·奥尔巴克,《没有法律的公正?》(纽约:牛津大学出版社,1983),第3—4页一、引言任一社会为解决争端而建立的各项制度,其性质、结构和运作都是对该社会的文化、哲学、世界观以及社会模式和经济政治组织的一种反映。众所周知,在中国传统社会中,人们对普通的民事纠纷采取的解决途径更多的是调解而非诉讼,调解的原理及实践深受儒家思想的影响,调解制度迎合、满足了传统社会的各种需要。而这种社会则以小农经济、社会裙带结构、松散的中央集权统治模式以及强调社会稳定而非经     

社会权与自由权区别主流理论之批判

积极权利与消极权利之间存在明确而具体的区别,但它不同于社会权与自由权之间的区别。主流人权理论所谓社会权与自由权之间的“义务区别”、“冲突区别”和“效力区别”都是虚构的、错误的。每一项权利都与积极义务和消极义务相联系;相应地,与社会权一样,自由权之间也存在相互冲突;社会权对国家不仅产生政治和道德约束力,也产生与自由权同样的法律约束力,并在一定范围和程度内产生可由司法裁决的法律效力。     

Toward More Interesting Research Questions: Problematizing Theory in Social Justice

The majority of research in social justice, indeed in all of social science, is incremental, has received few citations, has garnered little attention in the public, and can be viewed as dull and uninteresting by both academics and lay readers. Although often well versed in a variety of methodological techniques for testing research questions, we rarely receive explicit guidance in how to construct them in a way that is interesting, useful, and pushes theory forward. A novel “problematization” approach for constructing interesting research questions has been proposed by Alvesson and Sandberg (Constructing research questions: doing interesting research. Sage Publications, London, 2013). In this essay, I introduce the problematization method to social justice scholars in a comprehensive review and critique that identifies the benefits and limitations of the approach. Then, to provide a cursory illustration of the method in practice, I problematize the domain of retributive justice, attempting to identify potentially interesting directions for future research inquiry.     

司法的限度：在司法能动与司法克制之间

我国法院从司法改革初期积极扩张司法权的一端,转变到面对社会矛盾复杂性而采取自我限缩策略的另一端,暴露出司法权运作边界模糊的问题。社会需求决定了司法的供给,但司法权的能力是有限的,其机能的发挥有赖于一定的条件,而且当事人人数的多少、案件的复杂程度等都会影响司法权的能力。司法权应当恪守自己的边界。对超越自身能力的事情保持克制,是司法权威的必要保证。     

Oligarchy,Anarchy, and Social Justice

This article attempts to identify the problems associated with democratic organizations, and institutions. The issue of democratic, self-governing organizations, and institutions being transformed into oligarchies is addressed. Thus, the question of democratic rule being undermined by elites and their attempts to co-opt democratic organizations, specifically government, is assessed. In order to mitigate elite interests within organizations, anarchist social justice is considered (paradoxically) as a means to revitalize and transform democratic government.     

论社会基本制度的正义——对罗尔斯正义理论的讨论

社会的根本问题均可归结为社会基本制度问题,而社会基本制度问题的核心则是正义问题。社会基本制度的正义必须建立在正义对效率的优先性和自由对利益的优先性原则之上。在罗尔斯看来,正义的优先性是一个关乎人们的尊严与价值以及社会合作的可能性与有效性的条件。     

Social Justice and Communication: Mill, Marx, and Habermas

This article concerns how one may theorize a social justice of communication. The article argues that the theory of democracy cannot neglect an analysis of communication and that, indeed, a social justice of communication can be identified in the discourse ethics of Jürgen Habermas’s “deliberative” theory of democracy. The socio-political analyses of communication in John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx are examined as precursors to Habermas’s position because they are useful for setting off the unique synthesis of the liberal and critical traditions that Habermas develops. Such a social justice of communication shows how the communicative mediation of the public sphere can ameliorate the tension between individual autonomy and the solidarity of group membership by communicatively empowering individuals under conditions of mutual respect and equal dignity.