从国家社科基金立项项目看法学研究状况——一种知识社会学的视角

通过对1993-2004年来国家社会科学基金立项的法学类项目类立项资助项目相关指标的分析,来展现我国目前法学学术生产格局的大致状况及其背后动因;并通过与经济学社科基金立项项目的比较以及对法学类社科基金立项项目在社科基金项目中所占比例等数据的分析,来呈视法学作为一门独立学科在整个人文社会科学界的地位变迁,以及这种变迁背后的权力———知识格局。     

知识产权制度的进路与出路:知识产权文化——以构建和谐社会为视角

知识产权文化是知识产权制度的积淀和升华,对知识产权制度运行中各种主体的利益冲突具有潜在的协调和平衡作用。知识产权文化与和谐社会具有共同的经济理性,而且其协调和平衡的社会功能与和谐社会追求的终极目标不谋而合,因而知识产权文化在构建和谐社会的进程中具有重要的地位。     

论社会中介组织的新一类经济法主体地位

非法学学科对社会中介组织的研究成果交集指向其社会性和中介性,它构成了经济法上社会中介组织的理论基础。法学视野中的社会中介组织处于社会公共经济管理关系中时,民法和行政法无法调整该社会关系。社会中介组织的本质与经济法的宗旨、性质、价值本位等高度契合,其因此具有了新一类经济法主体的唯一身份。经济法主体视角下的社会中介组织理论有利于解决专利权滥用、消费者隐私权保护、公益诉讼、市场经济信用体系的构建等难题。     

论税收法治意识的培育

中国税收法治意识淡薄的历史原因包含历史传统、体制、法制、社会意识等多个层面。在税收法制建设中 ,应从治国方略、立法程序、队伍建设、教育宣传、监督机制等方面加强税收法治意识的培育。     

试论技术入股股东的权利、义务与法律责任

技术出资方式迥然不同于货币、实物、土地使用权等出资方式,技术入股股东不仅具有其他股东的权利、义务与法律责任,而且还具有自己的特殊权利、特殊义务与特殊法律责任。从技术入股角度出发,《中华人民共和国公司法》有关股东权利、义务与法律责任的规定需要充实。     

论阐明权的界限

规范阐明权的核心问题之一就是明确阐明权在民事诉讼中的适用范围,在我国阐明权的界限应当如下第一,对于大部分民商事案件,都应当适用阐明权;但是,对有关身份关系的诉讼、有关公益的诉讼、特别程序案件不适用阐明权。第二,阐明权适用的诉讼事项主要应是实体事项或者可以决定实体权利归属的程序事项。第三,阐明权适用于当事人,当事人的诉讼代理人,特殊情形下的案外人,以及有权启动再审程序的人。第四,阐明权的基准时通常应当是言词辩论终结时。     

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.     

法治的实现目标及其途径

法治社会的价值目标是追求民主、平等;法治的核心问题是约束、限制权力;法治国家的本质特征是体现民治;实现 法治化的基本途径是建立安全、方便、经济的参政方式。     

从东西法学文化的融合谈要约的法律性质

大陆法系以民事法律关系为核心的民法理论体系在中国业已形成 ,诸多英美法系的概念在合同法的立法过程中又被吸收到中国来 ,要约便是其中之一。这两者如何融合 ,使民法理论体系得以理顺 ,不但有理论意义 ,而且颇具现实意义。把要约定性为民事法律行为 ,可以使许多问题迎刃而解。