公司立法理念的选择——以中西法律传统比较为视角

“法律是什么?”这一问题曾被反反复复地提出,又由严肃的思想家们以形形色色、奇特的甚至反论的方式予以回答。〔1〕然而由于中西社会文明、文化传统、历史发展的不同,法的概念似乎难成定论,法律所内涵的精神也各有不同。在中西公司立法中,法律条文更多地或强调国家强制,或彰显私法自治,不同法律理念的选择正是不同法律文化传统的必然产物。一、中国的礼法文化与公司立法中的国家强制(一)追溯中国法律传统中的礼法文化礼主宰着中国传统文化的命脉。尽管礼源自古老的祭祀仪式,但是在长期的封建统治中,礼成为维系国家秩序的工具。从法的角度说…     

马克思世界历史视野中人的全面发展

世界历史是马克思对资本主义以来人类历史发展趋向的科学概括,人的全面而自由的发展是马克思终其一生所追求的最高价值目标。世界历史的前途是共产主义,而共产主义正是人的全面自由发展的社会,在那里,人的全面发展的逻辑与历史的双重内涵达到了最后的统一。因此,世界历史与人的全面而自由的发展是一个统一的历史进程。     

Reforming Chinese arbitration law and practices in the global economy

In the last 50 years Chinese arbitration law and practices has made significant contributions to the international commercial arbitration and strides to manage the rapidly increasing caseload associated with a period of amazing growth in economic interactions between Chinese and non-Chinese parties. In the global economy there are rooms for further improvement. The paper proposed some ideas on reforming the Chinese arbitration law and practices on the arbitration system regarding the ad hoc arbitration, panel system and tribunal jurisdiction, interim measures of protection, as well as standards for the judicial review on the arbitral awards.     

对法律事实建构论的初步阐释——以主体间性为分析进路的思考

诉讼法学界关于客观真实与法律真实的争论是针对法律事实的认定标准所产生的分歧,但是,争论并没有跳出主观与客观、事实与价值、形式与实质这种二元对立的思维模式。而要探究法律事实的形成,必须重新考察诉讼活动的性质,进而实现分析进路由主体性向主体间性的转换。法律事实建构论的提出就是这种分析进路转换之后的结果,但值得注意的是,我们必须对法律事实建构论的限度保持必要的警醒。     

To Wonderland Through the Looking-glass: Conceiving a Critical Legal Argument for Contractual Justice in the South African Law of Contract †

The aim of this paper is to identify the possible substructure (looking glass/es) of a critical legal argument for contractual justice (Wonderland) in the South African law of contract. South African contract law still fails, ten years after the constitutional transformation, to reflect the constitutional ideals of freedom, equality and human dignity in an acceptable manner. I argue that this disposition places a question mark over the legitimacy of contract law and marginalizes opportunities for the social change envisaged by the Constitution. The paper explores Duncan Kennedy’s Form and Substance-argument and indicates that the reluctance to accommodate these values may be attributable to the fact that the majority of role-players position themselves on the individualism/rules side of Kennedy’s continuum – a paradigm that perceives the law of contract as a body of positivistic rules to be applied neutrally and regardless of the social or socio-economic distortions its application may generate. In an attempt to move away from this traditional approach, the privileged paradigm is criticised. A typical CLS-approach is followed which employs sociology, psychological jurisprudence and game theory to criticise the law from outside the restrictive realms of law itself. Simultaneously, I attempt to illuminate the argument for a shift (step through the looking glass) to another paradigm. I conclude that our judiciary finds itself in a position similar to that of Plato’s prisoners in the cave and will not reach the point where they apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice. Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. †Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice.