Towards a Jurisprudence of Emergency: Colonialism and the Rule of Law

This article revisits an infamous incident in colonial India -- the Amritsar massacre of 1919 -- in order to explore larger questions of the place of martial law and emergency in jurisprudence. By focusing on modes of power in the colonial realm, and the productive role of the colonies in the conception of modern law, it tests the claims of a rule of law and declarations of emergency. The argument tries to show how these two terms are, in fact, relational in theories of colonial discourse and of legal positivism. As such, it reads H.L.A. Hart’s, The Concept of Law and instances from the colonial archive against one another. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

难以践行的誓言——关于法官法治信念的考察报告

当下的中国法治遇到了新的问题，主要是司法理念含有太多政治因素，而司法过程中包含着太多的人情等因素，法律效果反而变得不重要了，以至于法律不能以自身独立的方式调整社会关系。我们不反对法律工具主义，也不反对法律与政治之间的正常关系，但法律应该有自己的独立性，司法活动不能违背自身的规律和逻辑。科学发展观、以人为本无疑对司法有重要的指导意义，但要想使其更好地发挥理念的指导作用，我们就必须认真探寻其实现的方法和途径。法律的政治化和政治的法律化问题是一个重要的命题，我们必须认真研究。法治不等于政治，与政治有密切关系，法治对政治有约束作用，法治离不开政治的指导。然而我们必须清楚，法治服务于政治不能抛开法律的规则和程序来片面地追求社会效果。如果离开法律方法——这一基本的司法规律办案，将会彻底断送司法公正。     

On the Meta Rule of Energy Law: Contextual Reality Centered by Energy Transformation

The lack of the meta rule of energy law is the essential problem for the current conflict of energy law appositions and the valid establishment of theoretical systems. Therefore, it is crucial to set the energy transformation which symbolizes and normalize the energy revolution as the meta rule so that the problem is likely to be solved. The reason that energy transformation can be the meta rule is not only the result of reference of philosophical and law theories, but also the proved truth of the industrial revolution and Shale gas revolution in the U.S. Therefore, in establishing the energy law system in the future, the meta rule status of the energy transformation should be set up at the proper time to promote the normal development of the energy revolution in China.     

中国法治国法律文化的发展轨迹——以刑法文化的发展为视角

在中国传统法律文化中，国家权力主义和刑法工具主义色彩极为浓厚，政治国家占据着垄断地位，对社会进行全面的控制。法律文化的传播使我们看到，作为法治的根本标志之一的刑事法治，以刑法限制国家刑罚权，包括对立法权与司法权的限制，保障公民的自由与权利是人类社会的长期追求和共同期待。因此，我们要建设法治国的法律文化，使法律真正起到平衡利益、为和谐社会保驾护航的作用。     

增设影响力交易罪：全面规制间接受贿行为——兼评《刑法修正案》（七）草案第11条

《刑法修正案》（七）草案第11条新增了贿赂犯罪的内容，这有助于严密抗制贿赂犯罪的刑事法网。但是，就新增条文贿赂犯罪内容的罪名确认，存在着不同的看法。在充分分析贿赂新增条文罪名确定的争议后，我们认为，宜增设影响力交易罪来全面规制间接受贿行为，在此基础上，提出了增设影响力交易罪的具体路径。     

试论依法治国与以德治国并重的几个问题

以德治国,是党中央治国方略的重要思想,以德治国思想的提出并不是否定依法治国的基本方略地位,依法治国与以德治国的结合是时代发展的需要,以德治国的正确实施能够促进依法治国.依法治国与以德治国的关系是一种他律与自律的关系,个体的道德自律是法律他律的基础.以德治国的出发点在于解决市场快速发展与滞后的思想道德教育的尖锐矛盾造成的信仰危机和道德危机,兼治民德与官德.     

无法律依据行政裁量的界定及控制

行政主体在没有法律依据的情况下,对既定事项进行判断、权衡,作出决定的行政措施即无法律依据行政裁量。法律规范的滞后性、不周延性等特点,必将导致"无法律依据行政裁量"的大量存在。依照"形式法治"的观点,无法律依据行政裁量属于违法行为,应该被禁止。然而,按照"实质法治"的观点,却并非如此。可以允许型无法律依据行政裁量有其正义基础,因而在一定程度上可以被容忍。但其要满足不违背法的公平正义价值和立法目的,基于保证国家安全和社会整体稳定的考虑和基于个案正义的考虑等条件,并且要接受原则之治以及通过事后说明理由制度接受立法机关和司法机关的监督。     

中国伦理传统的“德治”与“治德”

自周初德治主义的萌芽至汉朝中国伦理传统“德治”模式的确立，其间历经管仲以法为主的德法结合论、孔子的以德治国论、荀子的礼法并重论等治国理论。然而，基于批判秦朝“法治”实践发展起来的汉朝治国模式，在“罢黜百家、独尊儒术”的背景下走向了纯伦理化的“德治”。与之相应，其培养“德治”主体道德素质的“治德”范式呈现为片面的伦理型特征。自汉至清历朝历代由盛而衰的“德治”循环实践证明：伦理型“治德”前提下的“德治”陷入了“德治”悖论。化解“德治”悖论，实现国家长治久安的选择是全面认识、借鉴吸收先秦时期诸子百家的治国理论及其“治德”范式，促进“治德”的伦理制度化。     

民主政治对建设社会主义法治国家的作用

本文通过对社会主义法治国家基本特征的论述及实现法治途径的比较分析,提出了我国应选择推行型法治途径,并在此基础上阐释了民主政治对社会主义法治国家形成的作用。     

How Chinese enterprises live in freedom, competition under the rule of law

China has thoroughly amended its corporate law and hastens to formulate an anti-monopoly law. To rebound then deny the planned economy once adopted, China firmly practices marketization reform. However, common-recognized rules haven’t taken shape without sufficient gaming and, lots of quick introduced legislations are only superficial provisions. As the trend of corporate legal system in developed countries, freedom and responsibility are the two contraries but not contradictory directions during the recent reform of China’s corporate law. One is deregulation, e.g., introducing one-person company and the transition from approval system to registration system for the establishment of a company; while the other is adding various provisions of responsibility and liability to the Company Law for controlling shareholders, actual controllers, directors, supervisors and top managers. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China not only prescribes unfair competition but also counters monopoly. In general, it mainly focuses on anti-monopoly provisions, to popularize the concept and value of free market, making systematic regulations on any kinds of monopoly. This article reviews its background, process, meaning as well as the problems encountered. As there remains somewhat a mystery that China rapidly develops, it may also reflect a fringe of the reason. Prepared for presentation at the Global Fellows Forum, the Hauser Global Law School Program, New York University School of Law, 25 October 2006. The author is a global research fellow of the Hauser Global Law School Program, NYU School of Law. He is grateful to Jerome Cohen, Eleanor Fox and William Allen for most helpful comments, to J. H. H. Weiler for aborative presiding, and to Hua Xiao, Justin Fong, Alex Wang and Han Han for English language assistance.