法学资源的分配与流动——以十年来会议主题与课题项目为样本的考察

通过对十年来法理学会议主题与课题项目的统计与分析,考察我国法学资源配置的特点,由此探讨我国法学资源流动的趋势和存在的问题,从而透显出我国十年来法学研究的成就与不足,并从学术整体规划、学术团队培育和基本理论建设等方面对未来法学资源的合理配置提出有针对性的建议和意见。     

对与未成年人有关的法学研究的反思

《未成年人法学》一书以未成年人权利保护为核心 ,将民事、行政、刑事、诉讼程序等部门法学中与未成年人有关的内容综合成一个新的体系 ,构建了一门新的法律学科———未成年人法学的理论框架。该书在研究了自然法、观念法、制定法以及一些基本法学理论的基础上 ,以“权利与义务转化理论”为基础 ,全面研究了未成年人与监护人、未成年人与学校、未成年人与国家、未成年人不良行为矫治、未成年人为主体的犯罪、未成年人为被害人的犯罪、未成年人司法制度等法律关系以及具体相关的法律制度。     

作为技术的比例：从判例中的比例原则发展看“行政合理性审查”

我国行政立法未明确比例原则，法院在审判实践中发展出比例原则，通过汇丰公司案、王丽萍案、陈宁案，确立并阐释了比例原则在实际司法过程中的不同面向，它既要求实现司法结果的“代价最小化”，也要求“利益最大化”。对行政法上的“显失公正”、“滥用职权”等概念的理解提供了新的视角和标准，为法院对行政行为进行“合理性审查”做了理论准备。对法治发展、行政立法和法理学进展都有重要的意义。     

法理学与两本《法理学》教材

法理学之为法理学的根本在于它是一种使人过有善德的生活的知识。现代法理学逐渐向科学的靠近,逐渐模糊和开始遮蔽这种对法理学的基本认识。在我国,这种趋势集中体现在法理学教材的编纂和体现在其中的基本认识。本文通过对两本法理学教材对法律的历史、基本的法律立场和法律技艺的处理的比较,从而凸现这一现象,进而指出法理学教材编纂所应当持有的法理学的知识观。     

简论研究司法行为的三重视角

研究法律行为,首先应采用法学的视角。规范法学视角、法社会学视角、法的价值视角均有其内在的优势,也各自存在着不同的缺陷。三者的关系并非完全并列,却相辅相成。在针对具体司法行为进行研究时,应当交叉使用。     

论法理学的实践功能

法理学作为一门理论法学在实践运用上与其他部门法学如民法、刑法等学科存在巨大的差别。尤其在近年随着部门法理学的兴起,传统法理学的作用受到了质疑。但是,我们不能为此而否定法理学的重要地位。实践可以分为直接的实践和间接的实践。对于法理学,特别是传统意义上的法理学,我们往往只聚焦其有限的直接实践功能,甚至连直接实践功能也忽视,而忽略其无处不在的间接实践功能。而正是法理学的间接实践功能才是法理学对司法的不可取代的理论支撑。     

论正当防卫的本质

关于正当防卫的本质 ,资产阶级刑法理论提出了自然法说、紧急状态说、效用说、权利侵害说等不同的观点。这些观点都有形式化、片面性的缺点 ,未能科学揭示正当防卫的本质。事实上 ,正当防卫的存在具有坚实的哲学根据、法学根据和道义根据。 (1 )哲学根据——权利与权力的对立统一 ;(2 )法学根据——报应与预防 ;(3)道义根据——正义与秩序的对立统一。因此 ,正当防卫的本质是多元的而不是一元的。     

走近"陕派律学"

“陕派律学”虽然形成于清末 ,但事实上 ,陕籍人士任职刑部由清初即代不乏人 ,可以说源远流长。陕派律学的主要代表人物一般都出身科举 ,由于任职西曹 ,究心于传统律学 ,取得骄人的学术成就 ,成为传统律学最后的高峰。不但如此 ,陕派律学代表人物在长期司法实践中 ,秉承了求真务实、重视民瘼的特点 ,在司法审判中表现出“公正”、“抗直”的优秀品质 ,不畏权势 ,公正执     

Families in Circle Process: Restorative Justice in Family Law

This article explores the use of “circle process”—a form of restorative justice—in family law and places this effort within a larger movement within the law toward law as a healing profession, or the “comprehensive law movement.” It explores the features and underpinnings of circle process and its relationship to original forms of dispute resolution such as those used in African‐style mediation and indigenous people's dispute resolution in North America. Values expressed by these forms of dispute resolution are argued to be particularly relevant in family law. Finally, it focuses on an innovative and exciting court‐sponsored program begun in Chicago in 2008, using circle process with families in conflict, in the Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court. This program's results suggest potential benefits and cautions of using circle process in family law.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Restorative justice, in particular, circle process, can be used to resolve family law cases.
• Circle process widens the group of participants in alternative dispute resolution of family law matters.
• Circle process brings more voices to the table, namely, extended family, friends, and supporters, thus enhancing the group's decisionmaking.
• Judges will want to be sure the families in question are appropriate for circle process before referring them to this method of resolving disputes.
• Circle processes can result in improved communication and relations among families in conflict.
• Circle process reflects the values of “original dispute resolution,” which often in turn reflects ubuntu, the idea that all humankind is interconnected.
• Circle process is part of a greater movement towards law as a healing profession/the comprehensive law movement, which includes therapeutic jurisprudence.

     

The hero at the bar of eternity: the Bakhtin Circle's juridical theory of the novel

The work of the Bakhtin Circle has juridical foundations that derive from neo-Kantian philosophy. The work of Hermann Cohen, Max Scheler and Georg Simmel are of special importance. An examination of this intellectual tradition leads to an examination of some of the works of Voloshinov, Bakhtin, Pumpianskii and Kagan, highlighting the centrality of the juridical person and the structures of judgement in the now famous and influential Bakhtinian theory of the novel. Bakhtinian theory also has implications for social theory more widely, as recent work has shown. An analysis of the juridical foundations of the theory is important for understanding the nature of the theory and assessing its usefulness for contemporary theory.