Principles of European Private or Civil Law?

The aim of this piece is to draw the attention of the debate on principles in European private law to an institutional question. As the question of who detects these principles is crucial to understand the values and intentions behind the provisions on principles, I turn to the significance of the authority question of who detects principles of European Private law with regard to the two players ECJ and the academic circle ‘Joint Network on European law'. After analysing the role of these players I will ask whether private law principles (which are principles derived from the analysis of contractual relationships by academics) or principles of civil law (derived from conflict solution by judges) govern the principles debate in European Private law. I will argue for a pluralistic understanding of European Private law, where neither academia nor the ECJ enjoy a monopoly on the detection of principles in European Private law. Instead, they form a symbiotic relationship in several respects. Understood in this way, the DCFR's role as a toolbox for the legislator is supplemented with its maybe even stronger significance as a toolbox for judges.     

行政法原则的实现初探

行政法原则是我国行政法学体系中一个非常重要的问题,然而,行政法原则的理论和实践在行政法学体系和行政法治实践中却是一个十分困惑的问题,致使行政法原则的理论停滞不前,行政法原则的实践只是一个空泛的概念。基于此,探讨行政法原则的实现不仅必要而且是实现行政法治不可或缺的内容。本文从行政法原则实现的理论和实践等方面对行政法原则的实现作了系统探讨,包括行政法原则实现的内涵、行政法原则未实现状态分析、行政法原则实现与行政法治的新进路等。     

The Legal Basis for Using Principles in WTO Disputes

This article argues that the use of principles in WTO disputeresolution is both necessary and desirable. However, Panelsand the Appellate Body (WTO Tribunals) have often ignored principlesor not clearly identified the legal basis for their use. Thisarticle establishes a framework for the use of principles (inparticular principles of WTO law, principles of customary internationallaw, and general principles of law) in WTO dispute settlement.Broadly, WTO Tribunals can use principles drawn from these categoriesto interpret WTO provisions, based on Article 3.2 of the DSU,and Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT. This follows most directlyfrom a teleological approach to interpretation, but principlesalso feature under subjective and textual approaches to interpretation.WTO Tribunals may also use certain principles in a non-interpretativemanner. Indeed, this may be necessary, particularly to addressprocedural issues. Precisely how a principle may be used dependson its type, content and status.     

The European Judicial Organisation in a New Paradigm: The Influence of Principles of ‘New Public Management’ on the Organisation of the European Courts

Recent reforms regarding the European Courts raise the question in which way do ‘new public management’ principles influence the European judicial organisation and how is a balance struck between these principles and classic ‘rule of law’ principles? The article first presents a classification of these types of principles in the framework for discussion regarding the European judicial organisation. Starting out from two paradigms, an inquiry is made into the status of the two sets of principles in the present‐day European ‘constitutional’ framework. Second, the interaction of principles is investigated with regard to a number of current dilemmas, including the demarcation of the judicial domain, the management of the Courts and the distribution of judicial competences.     

The Use of Unwritten Legal Principles by Courts*

Abstract. I argue that one can distinguish two types of unwritten legal principles as applied by courts (in Europe). On the one hand, what are called “structural principles,” which are induced, or at least pretended to be induced, from the written law. On the other hand, what are called “ideological principles,” which are not induced from the actual legal system, but refer to current dominant beliefs in society as to morals, politics or other non legal ideologies. It is argued that the distinction between structural legal principles and ideological legal principles could be an important element for the elaboration of a legal principle theory, as both these types of principles meet a different need and play a different role in legal practice. Structural legal principles primarily meet the need for a new ius commune, in order to achieve the coherence and the completeness of the legal system, whereas ideological legal principles, just like the human rights, meet a revived demand for an ethical framework for the law.     

The Andrews’ principles of risk, needs, and responsivity as applied in drug treatment programs: meta-analysis of crime and drug use outcomes

Objectives

The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to answer the question: Can the Andrews principles of risk, needs, and responsivity, originally developed for programs that treat offenders, be extended to programs that treat drug abusers?

Methods

Drawing from a dataset that included 243 independent comparisons, we conducted random-effects meta-regression and ANOVA-analog meta-analyses to test the Andrews principles by averaging crime and drug use outcomes over a diverse set of programs for drug abuse problems.

Results

For crime outcomes, in the meta-regressions, the point estimates for each of the principles were substantial, consistent with previous studies of the Andrews principles. There was also a substantial point estimate for programs exhibiting a greater number of the principles. However, almost all the 95 % confidence intervals included the zero point. For drug use outcomes, in the meta-regressions, the point estimates for each of the principles was approximately zero; however, the point estimate for programs exhibiting a greater number of the principles was somewhat positive. All the estimates for the drug use principles had confidence intervals that included the zero point.

Conclusions

This study supports previous findings from primary research studies targeting the Andrews principles that those principles are effective in reducing crime outcomes, here in meta-analytic research focused on drug treatment programs. By contrast, programs that follow the principles appear to have very little effect on drug use outcomes. Primary research studies that experimentally test the Andrews principles in drug treatment programs are recommended.     

二元规范理论下的法律原则检讨

当下法律原则理论的论争重心,已从"法律是什么"的概念分析,转向了司法实践中的原则裁判。自德沃金以来的"规则-原则"二元规范理论,对实际的司法裁判的解说力和作用力较为有限,也未能解决原则权衡这一关键性问题。"融贯性"命题和"籍由法政策权衡进行裁判"命题,是原则裁判理论的两大基石。但德沃金对融贯性命题的回答过于抽象,而阿列克希依比例原则和权重公式对权衡命题和原则理论的最新推进,却是一种不成功的自反性进化。这种自反性进化和理论反讽,表明作为一种"过度整合式"的裁判理论,原则裁判已然走到了穷途末路。     

和合思想与刑事诉讼法再修改

和合思想在我国有悠久的历史和传统.其包括了和爱、和立、和处、和达以及和生五项基本原理.这些原理都对刑事诉讼法的再修改提出了不同的要求:和爱原理要求以人本主义为出发点构建刑事诉讼基本框架;和立原理要求确立和巩固刑事诉讼中各个参与者的主体性地位,创造条件保障其诉讼功能的发挥;和处原理要求平等地关注和保障不同诉讼主体的权利,形成权利互动的良性循环体系;和达原理要求刑事诉讼目的的协调:和生原理要求作为一种社会冲突表现形式,刑事诉讼法需要建立更加多元化的纠纷解决机制.     

论和谐社会的构建与民法基本原则的平衡协调

和谐社会的构建对民法的基本原则提出了新的挑战,86年《民法通则》中的基本原则所呈现的历史局限性和滞后性与当今和谐社会指向的内容产生了利益格局的异化,为此,以和谐社会作为构建民法基本原则的宗旨,来重新审视和塑造我国未来民法中的基本原则,已成为当前刻不容缓的任务之一。同时,借鉴中外不同历史时期的民法基本原则的内容,规范和定位民法的具体基本原则。     

法律原则在法律推理中的地位和作用——一个比较的研究

我国关于法律原则的讨论一般集中在立法过于笼统与立法所规定的法律基本原则这两个方面。这种意义上的法律原则与德沃金所说的法律原则存在重要区别。德沃金关于法律原则的讨论其目的是强调法律的确定性 ,而我们关于法律原则的讨论却在强化法律的模糊性。法律原则的讨论主要涉及法律推理过程中原则与规则之间的关系。基于法治的原因 ,法律推理必须坚持将法律规则作为法律推理的大前提 ;在法律规则含义不明确、模糊或者相互矛盾时 ,可以使用法律原则 ,但是 ,必须经过一定的法律原则的认定程序。     

论西部开发中的有效制度供给

文章首先提出并论证了我国西部开发成功的关键在于有效的制度供给 ,并从多方面对有效制度供给的前提和基础进行了研究和阐述 ,最后对有效制度供给从财产权的合理配置和有效保护、微观主体的制度创新、有关可持续发展的制度供给、财政转移资金使用效率确保等几方面进行了有针对性的研究。     

论文化法的基本原则

文化法基本原则的确立需要以其基本宗旨为基础、合乎文化现象之规律、公共管理之原则,并尊重产业发展的市场准则。文化法的基本原则应该包括文化自由原则、切实公平享用原则、产业促进原则、文化多样性原则以及精神价值优先原则。同时,这些原则还衍生了非歧视性原则、文化主权原则等。其中,文化自由原则是文化法律实践的逻辑原点,切实公平的文化享用是文化法制与政策追求的最终目标,精神价值优先、文化多样性是对文化本质属性与功能的体现,文化产业促进则是为实现其他原则所必要的工具性原则。多项原则作为一个体系,服务于文化法律实践的最终目标。     

Principles of economic union: An extension of John Rawls's theory of justice

In this article I identify the principles of justice by which an economic union is to be constituted. For this purpose, I extend John Rawls's constructivist theory of justice to economically integrated societies. With regard to the principles identified, I defend a twofold claim. First, the principles of economic union generated by this extended procedure of construction can serve as common points of reference for the subjects of an economic union. Second, these principles cannot come into conflict with similarly constructed prior principles of social justice and international justice.     

Giovanni Battista Ratti's Critique of Principles Theory

Ratti has attacked principles theory in two respects. The first is that it is impossible to distinguish between rules and principles. The second is that the main thesis of principles theory, which says that balancing is the specific way of applying principles, is wrong. The result of Ratti's critique is his thesis that principles theory founders on a contradiction or, as Ratti calls it, an antinomy. All of this is based on two arguments: Ratti's disapplication argument and his law of concretization. I attempt to reject this analysis, for it is incomplete. It claims to be an analysis of balancing, but it misses the decisive point of balancing. Informed by this background, I defend the distinction between rules and principles as a distinction of the real and the ideal “ought.”     

基于法律原则的裁判

基于法律原则的裁判需依次解决以下三个问题:如何识别与个案相关的法律原则;如何处理原则与规则的适用关系,或者说在何种情况下,允许裁判者依据法律原则得出判决;如何解决原则之间的冲突问题,亦即能否籍由原则权衡获取法律上的“唯一正解”。现有的裁判理论对这三个问题作了不同回应,但欠缺可靠的操作程式。究其根源,是因为原则裁判的实质,是裁判者在规则穷尽之际,选择并依据法律体系内的价值判断为个案判决提供合理化论证;然而一旦涉及到价值判断,裁判就有主观、恣意和片面的可能。     

价值取向与历史演进——我国侵权法归责原则立法之选择

归责原则居于侵权法的核心地位.不同历史时期的不同社会需求导致了不同归责原则的出现.构建适应现代民法发展的侵权法归责原则体系是我国制定民法典面临的一大问题.我国侵权法归责原则应由过错责任、无过错责任与公平责任原则组成.     

关于编写警察干预家庭暴力实操规范几个问题的思考

无论是从警察干预家庭暴力的重要作用和家庭暴力本身的特点规律看,还是从警察干预家庭暴力的现实状况看,编写警察干预家庭暴力实际操作程序规范都十分必要;编写警察干预家庭暴力的实际操作程序规范要将借鉴国外成功经验与深入本地调研结合起来;警察干预家庭暴力的实际操作程序规范框架应该包括警察干预的基本立场原则和态度、基本原则、几个重要环节、出警记录、风险评估、询问技巧、多机构合作、警察干预家庭暴力的常见错误等内容。     

In Search of Civic Policing: Recasting the ‘Peelian’ Principles

For over a century the so-called ‘Peelian’ principles have been central to the self-understanding of Anglo-American policing. But these principles are the product of modern state-building and speak only partially to the challenges of urban policing today. In fact, they stand in the way of clear thinking and better practice. In this paper, I argue that these principles ought to be radically recast and put to work in new ways. The argument proceeds as follows. First, I recover and outline the current ‘Peelian’ principles and argue that they lack the specificity, sufficiency and status required in order to do real work in the governance of policing. Second, I make the case for principles both as a regulative ideal guiding our aspirations for what policing can become and as a means of regulating police work in the here-and-now. I then develop a revised set of principles and indicate, in conclusion, how they can guide the formation of trust-producing and democracy-enhancing practices of civic policing.     

Legally enforceable commitments

A continuing issue of contract law is what purported contracts should be legally enforced. This article considers what principles rational persons would want courts to use in enforcing commitments in a society in which they expected to live. By reviewing the promise, economic value, and reasonable expectations approaches, the principles of freedom of transfer, enforceable commitments, and collective good are developed. Then, less general principles of consideration, past benefits, reliance, gratuitous commitments, and contract modification are presented. These latter principles specify the more general principle of legally enforceable commitments. The resulting set of principles provide the basic outlines of legally enforceable commitments that would be acceptable to rational persons living in a contemporary, industrialized Western common-law society.     

法律原则核心问题论辩

法律原则理论主要包括法律原则规范属性理论、法律原则区分理论以及法律原则适用理论三个部分。法律原则在规范评价与事实描述两个层面上均作为有效的规范类型存在,它与法律规则作为两大构成要素并存于法律规范之中,它们之间的差异是逻辑性的而不是程度上的,但两者的关键区分在于法律原则无法像法律规则那样被承认规则所鉴别。法律原则不可以直接适用于具体个案,只能在符合形式限定与实质限定的条件下发挥其规范作用。对于我国许多学者基于实用主义偏好而热衷的法律原则适用理论,我们需要保持一种前提性的反思,有意识地进行语境置换,以便更好地把握法律原则的意涵。