历史演绎正义:论有限责任制度之伦理进路

伦理融入法律促使法律制度蕴含人文气息而富有长盛不衰的生命力,有限责任制度是公司安身立命的前提性基础,有限责任的伦理决定了公司法的伦理内涵与人文精神.历史上的有限责任初显可能是出于经济需要,而有限责任旺盛的生命力则必然有其伦理性依归,有限责任制度化、规模化发展的本身体现着公众的伦理抉择.有限责任经历了从初期的个体间约定责任的民法选择到法律认可并予以制度化适用的商法选择,这个过程是伦理域内信任到信用的伦理过程,是契约自由和经济理性发挥能动性的过程,因此,有限责任的进化历程是人类衡平各方利益的伦理化进程.     

论经济法的理论基础

任何法部门都要有理论基础。经济法理论基础应当以讲求法意理论、突出经济法特征和承认其他部门法理论基础为立论之本,并从经济法价值层面推衍出来。以往学界关于经济法理论基础的研究还没能够符合这些条件,故诸说成立的根据不充分;而民商法、行政法、社会法等理论基础对于从经济法价值层面推衍的"整体经济效益"的价值取向及覆盖的法内容,又无力支撑。于是,寻找经济法自身的根本理论支撑就十分关键了。笔者研究发现,经济法为了实现"整体经济效益"的价值取向,必须不断解决个体性经营无序带来的"整体"损害问题,于是,经济法配置的整体性经济权应当是限定个体性经营权的职权。笔者将这一理论称为"限权论"并定位为经济法理论基础。这一理论也是在与民商法的"保权论"、行政法的"控权论"、社会法的"扶权论"等理论基础的界分和协调中形成的。     

Dysfunctional state institutions,trust, and governance in areas of limited statehood

Areas of limited statehood where the state is absent or dysfunctional are rarely ungoverned or ungovernable spaces. The provision of rules and regulations, as well as of public goods and services – governance – does not necessarily depend on the existence of functioning state institutions. How can this be explained? To begin with, we identify functional equivalents to state institutions that fail to govern hierarchically. Moreover, we focus on informal institutions based on trust that are endogenous to areas of limited statehood. Personalized trust among community members enables actors to overcome collective action problems and enhances the legitimacy of governance actors. The main challenge in areas of limited statehood, which are often characterized by social heterogeneity and deep social and cultural cleavages (particularly in post‐conflict societies) is to move to generalized trust beyond the local level and to “imagined communities among strangers,” despite dysfunctional state institutions. We propose two mechanisms: First, the more group‐based identities are constructed in inclusive ways and the more group identities are cross‐cutting and overlapping, the more they lead to and maintain generalized trust. Second, experiences with fair and impartial institutions and governance practices – irrespective of whether state or non‐state – also lead to generalized trust beyond the local level and allow for the upscaling of governance.     

Verbal Ability and Persistent Offending: A Race-specific Test of Moffitt’s Theory

Theoretical questions linger over the applicability of the verbal ability model to African-Americans and the social control theory hypothesis that educational failure mediates the effect of verbal ability on offending patterns. Accordingly, this paper investigates whether verbal ability distinguishes between offending groups within the context of Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy. Questions are addressed with longitudinal data spanning childhood through young-adulthood from an ongoing national panel, and multinomial and hierarchical Poisson models (overdispersed). In multinomial models, low verbal ability predicts membership in a life-course-persistent-oriented group relative to an adolescent-limited-oriented group. Hierarchical models indicate that verbal ability is associated with arrest outcomes among White and African-American subjects, with effects consistently operating through educational attainment (high school dropout). The results support Moffitt’s hypothesis that verbal deficits distinguish adolescent-limited- and life-course-persistent-oriented groups within race, as well as the social control model of verbal ability.     

论律师法的修改及对刑事诉讼理念的影响

修改后的律师法,扩大了执业律师在刑事诉讼活动中的权利,从理论上解决了律师执业中"会见难"、"阅卷难"和"调查取证难"的三大难题.从立法机关的立法理念上来讲,这次律师法修改,是一种刑事诉讼理念上的进步,赋予了律师与司法机关在刑事诉讼中更加平等的权利,给予了律师以充分的法律信任,表明律师的政治地位和法律待遇在不断提高,他们将在刑事诉讼中发挥越来越大的作用.     

论律师执业豁免权

律师执业豁免权是一项十分重要的的权利,可以保障当事人的人权,促进司法公正,保证律师更好地履行其职责,也有利于审判方式的改革。修订后的律师法规定了律师享有庭审言论豁免权,意义十分重大,应该完善相关立法,扩大律师执业豁免权的内容,并强化律师管理、完善律师惩戒制度,防止律师滥用执业豁免权。     

承运人主张免责情况下，适航义务举证责任问题研究

按照“谁主张 ,谁举证”原则和最低限度事实说 ,适航义务的举证责任应当由主张免责不能成立的索赔方承担 ;然而从程序公正的角度考虑 ,由承运人承担适航义务的举证责任又较为合理 ,这两者的矛盾是合法性与合理性的矛盾。既然将合法的东西变得合理较之将合理的东西变得合法要困难得多 ,本文建议尽快以立法的方式对这一问题予以解决。     

论我国一人公司的法律规制

随着市场经济和公司制度的发展,一人公司以自身的特点赢得了投资者的关注,并被许多国家所认可。一人公司已在实践中对我国《公司法》实施提出了挑战。实践中,一人公司大量存在,完全禁止绝无可能。为了我国市场经济和企业的科学发展,应从法律上对一人公司进行规制,确认一人公司的合法地位,并加以积极规范以趋利避害。     

限量放权后"模仿式"地方立法困局的破解之道

修订之后的《立法法》对设区的市实施的限量放权是我国立法体制的重大变化,也是十八届三中、四中全会以来力求走出中央与地方关系怪圈的最新探索.限量放权的重大改革举措,虽然为地方治理经验的法治化吹来一股清新之风,但也使迅猛推进的"模仿式"立法转而陷入尴尬的窘境之中.切实共享立法体制改革的制度红利,实现地方事务治理的法治化与规范化,必须准确把握地方立法限量放权的初衷与要点,从注重问题导向与民意担当的高度,着眼于"为谁立法"立什么法"怎样立法"等关键问题,均衡各方利益博弈,做好配套制度变革,真正使地方立法平稳过渡与有效承接,及早摆脱"模仿式"地方立法的时代困局.