“卡迪”模式与刑事公正司法的实现

从“有法必依”到“公正司法”喻示着一种刑事司法观的应然转变:放松了司法者对法律文本本身严格服从的要求,更加强调文本之外的个案公正、合情理等实质合理性依据。这对破解当下具有普遍性的法条主义裁判思维,无疑是一种很好的政策支持和启发。按照罪刑法定原则本意进行合乎逻辑的推演,绝不能推导出“法有明文规定即可定罪处罚”的结论。韦伯关于中国古代司法系“卡迪”模式(即“非理性”)的论断具有一定的事实依据及合理性,这种卡迪模式对实质公正的追求具有目的正当性,不宜将此简单视为“恣意司法”的代名词,其中体现的能动性判断具有司法出罪维度的意义。在目前刑法体系下,法的公正价值与法的安定性并不存在冲突,出罪的理论依据与规范依据完全可以得到恰当融合,但在法适用中需要缓和法的命令性要求。恰当的说理论证是嫁接法的安定性与个案公正的纽带,该过程实际上是将合情理、合目的等价值考量揉入刑法文本的理解、适用及说理论证过程当中。     

立法伦理与算法正义——算法主体行为的法律规制

人类设计算法、运用算法的最终目的是为了增强自身解决问题的能力,进一步提升生活水平并优化社会结构.算法黑箱存在的前提预设是人类对因果关系的认知断裂,算法黑箱针对自动化决策过程中特定的算法用户.在一系列的数据代码背后是算法主体的行为目标和价值选择,不同价值选择加上算法的涌现性和自主性的复杂特质导致相关法律关系主体的权利冲突...     

惩罚性赔偿适用中的实体正义与程序正义

不同于一般损害赔偿旨在实现救济正义,惩罚性赔偿更侧重实现惩罚正义。在实现实体正义方面,惩罚性赔偿的适用需要法官基于权利保障的理念对私人自治理念的运用加以限制,法官在进行司法裁量时,应贯彻惩罚均衡原则,重点运用比例原则的分析方法确定惩罚性赔偿的数额。在实现程序正义方面,基于保障当事人诉讼权利的目的,法官在审理惩罚性赔偿案件时,应当变通适用民事诉讼制度中的处分原则,采用排除合理怀疑的证明标准。同时,在合议庭组成上,应适当限制依据常识作出判断的人民陪审员的数量。     

试论执法公正

“执法公正”是指行政执法行为的过程和结果遵循和体现了公平与正义的原则,包括实体公正和程序公正。现阶段,我国更应强调程序公正。实现“执法公正”需要从完善立法、提高执法人员“法治”观念与执法水平入手。     

律师刑事豁免权研究

律师在刑事诉讼中担任辩护人、诉讼代理人 ,为实现司法公正 ,保障人权作出重要贡献 ,同时也承担了巨大的风险。律师刑事豁免权是律师在刑事诉讼过程中维护委托人合法权益和降低律师执业风险的有力保障     

A Political Economy Perspective of Judicial Review in the European Union: Judicial Appointments Rule, Accessibility and Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice

The paper examines the benefits the sovereign member states of the EU expect to derive by granting the European Court of Justice the power to review the collective policy making decisions of the EU legislative bodies. Using the methodology of constitutional political economy it investigates the one-country one-judge rule of judicial appointments in the ECJ, the restrictions imposed on litigants to access the ECJ and the limits on the jurisdiction of the ECJ to review EU legislation. It also analyses how the presence of judicial review affects the size of the policy measures taken by the policy makers.     

Exploring the “Lost and Found” of Justice Theory and Research

Scientific interest in the nature of how people think about justice and fairness began approximately 70 years ago with Stouffer’s classic study on the American soldier. Since then there have been numerous theoretical frameworks and thousands of research studies conducted on what people perceive as fair and the consequences of making a fairness judgment. The goal of this article is to dig through the “lost and found” box of justice research in an attempt to re-examine where we have been, issues and ideas we may have forgotten, and to gain insight on directions we may want to go in the future. The key rediscovery of this review is that perspective matters. Specifically, how people interpret fairness depends critically on whether they are viewing a situation in terms of their material, social, or moral needs and goals. The implications of adopting a contingent theory of how people reason about fairness are discussed.

ECJ rules on acts of “Extraction” that infringe database right

Four years from the European Court of Justice's seminal rulings on database right in the British Horseracing Board and Fixtures Marketing cases, the Court has once again looked at the extent of protection this right affords. The earlier decisions had suggested the right was weak, with many databases not qualifying for protection and the extent of infringement required being difficult to meet. However, the ECJ's recent ruling in the Directmedia case (C-304/07) handed down in late-2008 is more positive for database owners. Adopting the reasoning of the Advocate General, the ECJ has clarified the types of acts which can constitute infringement of database right and confirmed they are broad in scope. The outcome and implications of the ruling are discussed below.     

最密切联系原则与我国的立法及实践

最密切联系原则是冲突法发展的必然结果 ,是当代冲突法中一种生命力极强、在各国立法及其实践中普遍确立和运用的一种法律适用的重要理论原则。最密切联系原则的实质在于软化连接点 ,增强法律适用的灵活性 ,从而实现法律的根本性价值———公平、正义 ,最大限度地维护当事人的合法权益。我国在立法上确定了这一原则 ,但对这一原则的运用标准不够完善、具体 ,因此导致在我国司法实践中法官摸索办案的客观现实。最密切联系原则在我国应成为法律适用的基本原则 ,在司法实践的运用中应体现法的公平正义价值     

国际法院咨询管辖权初探

从常设国际法院到国际法院,其咨询管辖权和“司法性”之间的协调一直是一个难题。要想满意地解决法院当前面临的困境,不必急于扩大有权寻求咨询意见的机构的范围,而必须确保各机构在利用国际法院的咨询管辖权时,更多的是出于解决法律问题的目的而非政治目的。