论在治安行政执法中如何兼顾社会治安与婚姻家庭——以《治安管理处罚法》实施中的两个具体问题为例

婚姻家庭作为社会的基本构成单位,与社会治安有着密切的联系,在法律规范上恰当调整婚姻家庭与社会治安的关系,既有利于社会治安,也有利于婚姻家庭的和谐美满。这些法律规范在治安行政法上有相当的体现,因此,在治安行政执法中应注意兼顾社会治安与婚姻家庭的关系。     

传统元素在中华地区婚姻法律制度上的体现

法律具有民族特性,是民族的共同意识,通过发掘传统婚姻法元素在现代法律制度的体现,能有效地增进法律制度的优势互补,增强两岸四地对中华文明的认同感,形成具有特色的、完善的中华法系。     

Dignity or discrimination: what paves the road towards equal recognition of same-sex couples in the European Union?

Abstract

The article analyses possibilities for the Court of Justice of the EU to go beyond its current narrow approach towards same-sex couples’ rights within the EU non-discrimination law framework, considering a comparative treatment of dignity-based arguments. It critically reviews the CJEU’s current approach exclusively focusing on direct discrimination and the comparator paradigm. By doing so, the Court has tolerated a situation of de facto discrimination and limited advancement of same-sex rights. The question is then whether the situation could be overcome if the CJEU would follow other courts and develop reasoning based on dignity to underpin the EU non-discrimination analysis with substantive meaning. The article rejects this proposition. Dignity is not suitable because it is both too wide and to narrow to ensure certainty and substantive protection within EU non-discrimination law. While the concept of dignity protects a minimum standard and can provide a floor of rights, non-discrimination law fosters equality by imposing procedural standards and challenging measures that effect groups differently. The concepts should thus not be conflated. Instead, a consistent application of the concepts of direct and indirect discrimination seems more promising.     

关于我国婚约的法理学分析

我国婚姻法对婚约采取放任的态度,完全由道德调整,婚约不具有任何法律效力。我国现实生活中广泛采用婚约的实际与我国婚姻法对婚约规定的缺如极不相称。现实生活中人们广泛采用婚约是因为婚约存在道德的规制效力,婚约的采用能增加未来结婚的期望性。但是,如果婚约仅有道德约束性而不具有任何法律效力,那么,婚约就很有可能只是约束了有道德的守约人,对道德低下的人任意毁约反而是一种纵容。既然婚约是由双方当事人自愿订立,当然应该有其法律效力,只是其效力的范围不及人身而已。我国婚烟法对婚约的放纵显然缺乏法理的支持,对因婚约而引发的财产纠纷根据军人与非军人的不同而区别对待,更是缺乏正当性。     

我国现代婚姻暴力问题现状及对策

目前我国社会婚姻暴力发生率不断增加,严重暴力问题突出。受害者以没有经济实力的家庭妇女为主,在知识分子中存在大量的精神暴力。尽快出台"反婚姻暴力法"和完善关于婚姻暴力的法律法规来为受害者提供法律保护已刻不容缓。同时要从建立家庭的基础抓起,提高婚姻质量,加强婚姻服务,实现婚姻的社会功能,立足社区,建立完善的婚姻家庭服务机制,整合社会资源,建立婚姻家庭教育的系统网络。     

伦理与婚姻法——评马克思《论〈离婚法草案〉》

马克思所著的法学著作涉及伦理问题的比较少,《论〈离婚法草案〉》是其中非常重要的一篇。在这篇文章中,马克思认为婚姻法必须合乎伦理,伦理是婚姻法的本质所在,是婚姻法存在的根本基础,婚姻法是社会认为必须以国家权力为后盾,以法律形式才能维护的婚姻伦理关系的上升。以青年马克思在《论〈离婚法草案〉》中所阐述的伦理与婚姻法思想观察我国现行婚姻法,我们会发现我国现行婚姻法与马克思理想中的婚姻法有许多一致性,可见马克思法律思想对我国法治建设仍然具有深刻影响,继续加强马克思法律思想研究有重要现实意义。     

When Equality Is not Equity:Homosexual Inclusion in Undue Influence Law

In Barclay's Bank v. O'Brien(1993) the House of Lords extended the undue influence rules to heterosexual and homosexual cohabitees, a move that was widely welcomed and has been endorsed in Royal Bank of Scotland v. Etridge (No. 2) (2001). The paper argues that the extension to homosexual couples is inappropriate, since undue influence is largely a problem of heterosexuality. It is not accidental that there have been no reported cases of undue influence between lesbian or gay partners, not because abuses of power do not occur within such relationships, but because they are free of the central causal factor of undue influence: not intimacy per se but the gendered power dynamic within heterosexual intimacy that has characterised almost all reported cases. The first part of the paper examines the courts' treatment of gay and lesbian couples in other areas of equity and concludes that the absence of gender role assumptions leads courts to treat lesbian and gay claimants more equitably than they do heterosexual women. The second part focuses on the potential for gay and, especially, lesbian relationships to act as models of more egalitarian relationships than heterosexual ones. The dominant discourse of inclusion within the gay and lesbian legal lobby is problematised, and the paper concludes that what is needed is social and judicial recognition of what is different, not what is the same, about our relationships. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Imperilled Muslim Women, Dangerous Muslim Men and Civilised Europeans: Legal and Social Responses to Forced Marriages

How is it possible to acknowledge and confront patriarchal violence within Muslim migrant communities without descending into cultural deficit explanations (they are overly patriarchal and inherently uncivilised) and without inviting extraordinary measures of stigmatisation, surveillance and control so increased after the events of September 11, 2001? In this paper, I explore this question by examining Norway's responses to the issue of forced marriages. I argue that social and political responses to violence against women in Muslim communities have been primarily culturalist. That is, the violence is understood as originating entirely in culture, an approach that obscures the multiple factors that give rise to and sustain the violence. The culturalist approach enables the stigmatising and surveillance of Muslim communities. I approach this argument in two parts. In part one I discuss two important and influential books written by women who identify their concerns as feminist and who lay out the case for considering the problem of forced marriage as a problem of controlling fundamentally unassimilable and culturally inferior Muslims. I explore these works as paradigmatic of the culturalising or culturalist move. In part two, I review a variety of legal initiatives in Norway, first contextualising them as part of a larger European venture to control Muslim populations and then examining what they share conceptually with the approaches in part one. I end with how we might begin to develop an anti-racist response to the problem of violence against women.     

A Hazy Concept of Equality

K.B. is a woman working for the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) with a transsexual male partner. Her partner's male gender was not legally recognised in the United Kingdom and consequently they could not marry. Whilst the NHS pension scheme provides for the payment of a survivor's pension, this is only in respect of married partners. The European Court of Justice held that the combination of circumstances that prevented K.B.'s partner from receiving the survivor's pension amounted to sex discrimination in pay contrary to Article 141 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. At first sight, this decision appears to represent a strengthening of the concept of gender equality in European Union law. Yet, the reasoning provided by the Court lacks clarity and coherence. Moreover, the reach of equality is compromised by the Court's determination to exclude any confrontation with the privileged status of heterosexual marriage. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Sir Mark Potter And The Protection Of The Traditional Family: Why Same Sex Marriage Is (Still) A Feminist Issue

In Wilkinson v. Kitzinger, the petitioner (Susan Wilkinson) sought a declaration of her marital status, following her marriage to Celia Kitzinger in British Columbia, Canada in August 2003. The High Court refused the application, finding that their valid Canadian marriage is, in United Kingdom law, a civil partnership. In this note, I focus on Sir Mark Potter’s adjudication of the human rights issues under Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (E.C.H.R.), highlighting his restatement of the ideology of the ‹traditional’ family as natural, normative and desirable. I argue that this case shows that the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage is a feminist issue, because denying same sex couples access to marriage works to sediment patriarchal ideas and re-inscribe gender roles within the family. Wilkinson v. Kitzinger [2006] E.W.H.C. (Fam.) 2022; [2006] H.R.L.R 36