简析仲裁协议的形式要件

我国《仲裁法》第三章规定仲裁协议必须采用书面形式,符合国际仲裁协议制度的发展趋势。但是对于仲裁协议书面形式未作具体规定,易在实践中产生争议,建议修改我国《仲裁法》第三章有关仲裁协议的书面形式,并由法律规定出明确的仲裁协议的概念。     

面向21世纪的刑事司法理念

刑法理念是刑事司法理念不可或缺的内容。面向2 1世纪的刑事司法理念首先要求对刑法理念进行探讨,这种探讨应立足于形式合理性与实质合理性这一对范畴,并以此对罪刑法定原则的基本精神做深入的挖掘。罪刑法定是以形式合理性为其价值取向的,因而应当建立形式合理性的刑法观念。如果不想使罪刑法定原则成为一个口号或标语,就必须注重它在司法实践中的贯彻和落实,这就是罪刑法定原则的司法化问题。罪行法定原则的司法化涉及司法体制、司法理念和司法人员的素质等问题,特别是应建立这样的司法理念:罪刑法定原则下形式合理性优于实质合理性。     

量刑思维规律下的量刑方法构建

量刑在本质上不是＂刑之量化＂,而是＂刑之裁量＂。这决定了量刑思维不只是形式逻辑思维或辩证逻辑思维,而是二者的有机统一。量刑方法作为量刑思维的表现手段,需遵循量刑思维的以上逻辑规律。传统的经验量刑法虽然是辩证逻辑思维的充分展现,但没有融入现代形式逻辑的现代科技手段;而所谓现代量刑方法虽然使用了现代科技手段,但又只是遵循现代形式逻辑规律,规避了辩证逻辑规律。刑法现代化下的量刑方法构建,应是基于量刑思维的逻辑规律,把传统经验量刑法与各所谓现代量刑方法进行整合,以形成定量与定性相结合的量刑方法。     

法治文化的几个理论问题

党的十七届六中全会强调文化建设,将推进法律文化、法治文化的研究。法治文化是指包含民主、人权、平等、自由、正义、公平等价值在内的人类优秀法律文化类型;法治文化由表层结构和深层结构组成,前者包括法律规范、法律制度、法律组织机构、法律设施等,后者包括法律心理、法律意识、法律思想体系。法治文化就是法律的意识形态和与其相适应的社会制度和组织机构。一般来说,观念支配行为,思想决定行动,而良好的制度和规范又影响和塑造着人们的思想观念体系。法治文化建设就是制度性文化建设与观念性文化建设的结合和互动。法治文化建设既应该高度重视法律制度的建设,也要高度重视对公民观念的塑造和提高。     

法治价值论

法治这个概念所蕴含的理念应该是具有一般性的,即排除人治的专断、维护个人自由权利、政府依法行事而且其本身受到法律规范以及守法作为一种道德承担。由此,法治的实体价值就是由法治所决定的法律在目的和后果上应遵循的社会原则,包括正义原则、自由原则和平等原则;法治的形式价值则是指向法律本身,是从法律的内部规定的具体原则和标准,包括法律至上原则、法律的普遍性原则、法律的可操作性原则、法律的程序正义原则等。法治的两种价值在取向上存在差异,这种差异决定了两者不能相互取代,不能只从一个方面去把握法治的内涵,但是两者在法治这个统一体中又是相互联系的。因此,法治应是实体与形式的统一,是人类法律、社会实践所追求的共同目标。     

论民法典的形式、价值与中国民法典

民法典是大陆法系国家民事法律系统化的传统,其表现为形式上的合理性,内容上储藏着以人为本的理念,以自由、平等为其基本要素,并以此规制着人类的社会秩序。中国一向缺乏私法传统,而经济制度和社会结构的变迁,使民法典的制定成为客观上的需求。面对民法价值模式的变迁,确定我们的民法价值观的选择,以实现中国民法典目的和理想。     

Recent Evolution of Public Sector Structure in Latin America: Describing and Explaining Shifts in Autonomy Trends in Colombia and Venezuela

This article has two objectives. The first objective is to review and assess the recent evolution of agency design in Colombia and Venezuela. More specifically, we study the agencies' formal autonomy in these two countries since the year 1999 when Venezuela experienced a major change in government policy towards socialism. Thus, we attempt to explore how this policy change is reflected in the formal autonomy of agencies. Our second objective is to test if, despite the differences in policy choices the two countries have taken in the recent years, there are theoretical factors related to the agencies' design that can explain the level of formal autonomy of the agencies. The results show two main elements: first, even though the patterns of formal agency autonomy in Colombia and Venezuela differed before Venezuela's latter policy change, the differences between these two countries have increased since 2000. This indicates that each country's policy preferences may account for the differences. Second, for both countries, we found that, despite the differences, agency level factors such as the primary tasks that are performed by the agencies and the policy sector in which they are active have had an impact on their level of formal autonomy. However, the results indicate that these relationships do not follow the predictions that have been made based on the different theoretical perspectives. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

General Deterrence and International Conflict: Testing Perfect Deterrence Theory

Since general deterrence necessarily precedes immediate deterrence, the analysis of general deterrence is more fundamental to an understanding of international conflict than is an analysis of immediate deterrence. Nonetheless, despite a few exceptions, the quantitative literature has ignored the subject of general deterrence, focusing almost exclusively on situations of immediate deterrence. My purpose in this essay is to fill this evidentiary gap by subjecting a recently developed theory of general deterrence—Perfect Deterrence Theory—to a systematic test by examining general deterrence from 1816–2000. The results indicate that the predictions of perfect deterrence theory are strongly supported by the empirical record.     

包容性刑事法治国之构建与提倡——刑事法治国基本模式之冲突与出路

刑事法治国包含形式的刑事法治国与实质的刑事法治国。两者的冲突体现为刑法规范的可预测性或安定性与刑法规范的妥当性之间的对立,并在中国的刑事立法与司法两方面展开,成为法治国建构中的最大难题。对于形式的与实质的刑事法治国的取舍问题,不可过于置重其一,而应采取以形式法治国为主、实质法治国为辅的两者兼并吸收的包容性刑事法治国模式。在坚持形式正义优先和形式合理性的前提下,以实质正义为价值基础对刑法规范进行合目的性的实质解释,以此为基点,在中国的刑事立法与司法层面展开刑事法治国的建构。     

司法自由裁量权的现实分析

如果运用得当,自由裁量权能够很好地沟通形式正义和实体正义.但是,如果自由裁量权赖以存在的制度基础并未巩固,那么广泛赋予法官这种权力反而会削弱法律信仰并摧毁新理念.因此,在法官的职业素质、职业伦理和独立性尚存缺陷的环境里,应诉诸立法理性、奉行规则中心主义.