中国法治的行政法治化道路

多维面向的中国法治道路理论有自身的缺陷。基于法治的核心要义和适度的建构立场,可以从权力分解的角度探寻具体的法治道路。借助司法权威确立规则之治和经由法律人之治实现法律之治,是＂司法中心主义＂的法治进路构想;规则之治与社会治理的冲突,司法独立与司法公正的矛盾,是其内在缺陷。行政法治化,有助于推动公民启蒙、控制权力膨胀、促进规则之治,从而化解中国法治建设的内在矛盾,是中国走向法治的先导和必由之路。     

亲情正义与规则正义的冲突与调和——基于亲情案件引发舆论争议的思考

亲情正义与规则正义的立论基础不同,导致涉亲情案件中依法律规则的裁判结果与社会的情感评价可能冲突。亲情正义强调亲情伦理,思考问题充满感性和区别对待,更注重亲情带来的义务要求。而规则正义强调法律至上、理性思考、权利与义务的统一,注重平等对待。为弥合二者冲突,借鉴不同地方的法治经验实属必要。立法和司法也应更积极回应亲情正义的要求,清晰界定涉亲情案件中对事、对人的适用范围,尊重当事人的选择,如此方能实现法律与情理的合理互动。     

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。     

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。     

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.     

规则、话语与范式:乡土社会场域下的纠纷解决

乡土社会的纠纷解决过程体现出乡土社会内部规则与外部规则的交涉,大众话语和精英话语的对话。通过国家与社会范式对乡土社会纠纷解决的分析,可以发现,乡土社会法律多元的实质是多元权力的交涉和互动,并由此可以进一步揭示乡土社会纠纷解决的法治意义。     

舆论监督与司法公正的关系

舆论监督与司法公正的博弈是社会主义法治建设中的必然现象,也是制衡权力与权利的必要途径,本文从司法公正和舆论监督的概念出发,讨论了二者在现实层面的矛盾表现,并对其原因进行分析,论述了舆论监督与司法公正在社会公正这一共同价值追求下的统一和互补。     

近代法治信念是怎样形成的:一个思想史的考察

中国思想界对于法治的信念,是在19世纪中晚期孕育与萌生的。这个过程体现了中国思想界对于固有文明秩序的重建。从思想史的角度上看,法治信念的形成经历了三个阶段:在19世纪中期,思想界出现了对于传统文明秩序的质疑与批判,这是法治信念诞生的精神前提;洋务运动期间,思想界关注的焦点从工商救国逐渐转向议会救国,这是法治信念形成的经济与政治提前;甲午中日战争加重了中国文明秩序的危机,促成了从根本上改弦更张的时代要求,以民主立法、政府守法为核心的对于现代法治的信念终于形成。     

IS THE APPROXIMATION RULE IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS?

In an effort to develop clear and uniform standards for the allocation of custodial responsibility, the American Law Institute has proposed a number of reforms. For example, under the approximation rule, the proportion of time parents spent with their children performing direct caregiving functions prior to the divorce would be reflected in the proportion of custodial time allotted to each parent after divorce. Much of the rationale used to justify the approximation rule is explicitly or implicitly based on attachment theory ( Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980 ). This article discusses the assumptions and implications of the approximation rule from the standpoint of attachment theory.