不当得利“没有合法根据”之概念澄清——基于“给付”概念的中国法重释

不当得利＂没有合法根据＂的证明责任问题在诉讼法上争议颇多。在探讨＂没有合法根据＂的证明责任问题前,应首先在民法上澄清＂没有合法根据＂的具体所指。我国民法对不当得利的理解受到德日的混合影响,但并未察觉德日对不当得利的理解路径是不同的。德国学说通过物权行为等理论构建,奠定了＂给付＂概念的基础,并进而明确了＂没有合法根据＂的所指。日本法基于自己的判例构建了与德国形似神异的不当得利学说,其＂给付＂及＂没有合法根据＂的所指与德国法不同,并在一定程度上导致了不当得利的＂名不副实＂。我国法不承认物权行为理论,也不应继受日本异化的不当得利理论,应根据我国现有民法制度重释＂给付＂概念,并在此基础上确定不当得利＂没有合法根据＂的具体所指,为其证明责任的确定奠定基础,也为其他诉讼法问题的解决奠定民法基础。     

分析实证法学研究的新视角——以纯粹法理论为样本

分析实证法学的研究无法摆脱或超越分析实证法学理论"标签"的限制。在这样的研究局势下,研究成果将永远无法自我扬弃。通过讨论纯粹法理论,揭示其所包含的不可避免的政治因素,从而启示后来的研究者:如果以此种不同以往的进路进行研究,分析实证法领域将展现出一种超越"标签"之外的多面向的研究新境界。     

‘Fat cat’ lawyers and ‘illegal’ migrants: the impact of intersecting hostilities and toxic narratives on access to justice

ABSTRACT

This article examines how three spheres of hostility intersect to prevent effective access to justice for those living with insecure immigration status. The neoliberal governance model, the barren justice landscape and the hostile environment are supported by the cynical construction of the ‘fat cat’ lawyer and the toxic ‘folk devil’ narrative of the ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. To the extent that the judiciary have frustrated the more obvious, ideologically driven, attempts to restrict access to justice for migrants, the austerity predicated measures pursuant to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have completely altered the legal landscape. The analysis is informed by the findings of the ‘Legal advice and support for persons with insecure status’ project (hereafter LAPIS) in Nottingham which explores the challenges faced by service providers and the lived experiences of those with insecurity of status. It is clear that access to justice is a passport to the realisation of other rights, yet participants struggled to access a remedy because legal advice is too often out of reach.     

Lost in space? the role of place in the delivery of social welfare law advice over the telephone and face-to-face

ABSTRACT

Advice that is provided exclusively over the telephone has been promoted by government as more convenient and accessible than face-to-face appointments. The resulting push towards telephone-only provision, as implemented by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, challenges the long history of association between social welfare law advice and local delivery within disadvantaged communities. This article reports on qualitative research comparing telephone and face-to-face advice which uncovers the continuing relevance of place in the dynamics and mechanics of social welfare law provision. Familiarity with the geographical location, knowledge of local policies and procedures, relationships with opponents and allies, and an understanding of the ‘local legal culture’ mean that face-to-face advisers are often able to conduct their legal casework more effectively. Conversely, local knowledge is unlikely to be available to Community Legal Advice telephone advisers. This research suggests that, in addition, telephone-only advisers may be developing a more narrow understanding of the essential qualities of casework. These findings are particularly significant in view of the likely future expansion of remote methods of delivery in legal aid work.     

美国诱惑侦查制度及对我国的启示

美国社会执法实践中广泛存在诱惑侦查的使用，关于诱惑侦查的法律和制度规制经过长期演变和经验积累，形成了较为完整的诱惑侦查制度。本文通过对美国诱惑侦查制度的法律规定和具体实践的探究，以期为完善公安机关执法工作提供一些参考。我们应借鉴美国关于诱惑侦查方式运用的有益经验，加快有关诱惑侦查领域的立法进程，明确具体的法律规定。公安机关在执法实践中应正确认识诱惑侦查的合理性，慎用诱惑侦查手段，严格遵循程序执法，规范自身执法行为，积极改进执法方式。     

论缓刑的法律性质--兼评缓刑考验期满后再犯罪成立累犯的合理性

缓刑在不同的刑事诉讼阶段所表现的主要特性是不同的,因而对其性质进行分阶段的界定也就有了现实的依据和合理性。从决定是否对犯罪分子宣告缓刑的意义上来说,缓刑有刑罚裁量的性质;从对犯罪分子具体适用缓刑的各项规定的意义上来说,缓刑又具有刑罚执行的性质。缓刑,兼具刑罚裁量和刑罚执行两重性质。在明确缓刑具有刑罚执行的法律性质的前提下,认定缓刑考验期满后再犯相应之罪的犯罪分子为累犯,就有了理论以及法律上的合理性。此种处置,从一般预防和特殊预防的角度来看,既符合中国社会重视行为人主观意志的现实,又能更好发挥刑罚预防犯罪的功能,也是符合我国现行刑事政策和法律规定的。     

French engagement versus British commitment. Was it interlingual miscommunication or political manipulation?

ABSTRACT

The efforts undertaken to establish the contemporary European Union started many years earlier. The history of establishing a pan-European organization is interesting not only for historians and economists but also translators and linguists as it is the history of interlingual communication (negotiations and agreements). One such negotiation was allegedly ineffective due to the difference in understanding the French term engagement and its English equivalent employed by translators and interpreters, that is to say the English term commitment. The authors aim at presenting the political background of negotiations and the social semiotic analysis of the terms in question in order to provoke the reader to find the answer to the question whether the negotiation was broken due to interlingual miscommunication resulting from erroneously chosen equivalent or it was destined to failure from the very beginning due to socio-political and economic interests of negotiating parties. In order to achieve that goal, the authors have analysed notes exchanged between the governments of France and Great Britain in course of negotiation. The history of negotiation and the linguistic analysis are combined to illustrate the complexity of meaning construction and the semiotic implications of the contextual dependence of meanings of terms and their dynamic evolution in time and space.     

法的现代性：一个虚构的理论神话

在当代中国，法的现代性理论虽然已成为一个引入注目的学术板块，但是，有两个方面的问题需要再审视。一方面，从现代性本身来看，它其实是一个虚构、虚拟的概念，而且已经异化成为一个符号化的图腾。另一方面，从现代性与中国法律、中国法治的关系来看，在历史上，法律移植虽然持续不断，但百年中国的法律移植与现代性无关；20世纪80年代以来，现代性虽然有力地塑造了中国的法学理论，但它对当代中国法治实践的塑造能力相当微弱，真实生活中的法律与法治只能按照实践本身的逻辑来演进，现代性不足以牵引中国法治实践的方向。这两个方面表明，虽然现代性这个词的价值与意义不容全部抹杀，法的现代性理论依然只是一个虚构的理论神话。     

刑法中客观主义与主观主义之争的初步考察

与学派之争无关的主客观争议,有必要从刑法中客观主义与主观主义之争中予以剥离。刑法中客观主义与主观主义之争,其意义可分为两个维度。第一维度的客观主义与主观主义之争涉及刑罚对象的争论,即刑罚的对象究竟是对法益的侵害还是行为人的人身危险性;第二维度的客观主义与主观主义之争乃是在不法论意义上而言,即不法的成立是根据行为的客观面或是行为人的主观意思进行判断。客观主义与主观主义之争在我国刑法学中尚未真正展开,双方的论争缺乏针对性,且在概念的指涉与运用上充满混乱。就我国刑法的立场问题而言,有必要根据客观主义与主观主义之争的不同维度进行立场选择。在第一维度的客观主义与主观主义之争中,应采客观主义;在第二维度的客观主义与主观主义之争中,应采受客观主义严格约束的主观论,即一种以法益侵害为基础的二元的行为无价值论。