探寻宪法解释的中国之路——读范进学教授《认真对待宪法解释》

宪法解释对于宪法研究和宪政建设都有着重要的作用。当前的宪法解释研究,应从理论体系的研究转向制度层面的实施,在尊重宪法文本权威的前提下,在维护现有宪政体制稳定性的基础上,运用宪法解释的方法来推动中国的宪法研究和宪政建设。     

Understanding Dworkin through art: object-based learning and law

This article explores object-based learning (OBL), a burgeoning pedagogical approach in higher education. Object-based learning engages students’ pre-existing visual and conceptual literacy as a gateway to work through difficult threshold concepts. The article advocates this exciting learning model in law by articulating what it is, explaining how it can be applied through the example of teaching Dworkin in a jurisprudence module. The article introduces OBL approaches, details how it is relevant to jurisprudential teaching as well as its scope for application across legal teaching. It explains how such an approach moves away from transmission modes of teaching into transformational ones, accessing students’ abstract web of comprehension in conjunction with text-based learning to produce more imaginative and creative critical thinking skills.     

The new progress in Chinese Arbitration Law

The Chinese Arbitration Law of 1995, together with the Civil Procedure Law and other sources of arbitration laws, is served as the legal bases for the Chinese arbitration system. Compared with advanced arbitration systems in the world, there still exist some defects of the Chinese Arbitration Law due to its lack of rich legislative experience and the conservative attitude toward arbitration. However, the Judicial Interpretation by the Supreme Court of China in 1995 makes a progress in Chinese Arbitration Law by strengthening the support to arbitration, but not playing the interventionist role of it.     

国际投资仲裁中最惠国条款的适用和管辖权的新发展

国际投资仲裁中某一投资条约规定的最惠国条款能否延伸适用于其他投资条约规定的仲裁程序是近年来的一个热门话题,仲裁裁决的实践给出了两种完全不同的答案,并且依据《维也纳条约法公约》对有关条款进行解释几乎是所有仲裁庭必做的工作.但是近两年的裁决似乎有一种将最惠国条款扩大适用于仲裁程序的趋势,尽管不同仲裁庭甚至同一仲裁庭的不同仲裁员对于同一问题可能会有不同的观点.我国签订的投资条约应当明确最惠国条款和仲裁程序的适用范围,以及规定条约不溯及既往原则等.     

Diamond signs: generic stones and particular gems

Analysis of narratives from ethnographic research with diamond consumers representing the target market (largely middle-class white women between 20 and 50 years of age) reveals how symbolic associations promoted by industry are refracted through interpretations of both adverts and diamonds in general, but shows that local contingencies (basic attitudes and knowledge about diamonds and their production, circumstances of acquisition, and personal histories) are significant in determining meanings of people's own specific diamonds. Far from being batch absorbers of advert discourse, consumers are idiosyncratic, creative, and sometimes playful interpreters, and furthermore may distinguish between these strategies and those suggested by adverts or as performed by others. These findings are in part explicable on introducing for diamond consumption an important distinction between type and token, whereby a token is a specific instantiation of a generic type. This approach contributes to developing methods supple enough to capture consumers’ multi-dimensional interpretive strategies.     

保险诈骗罪第4款解释路径的法律分析

片面共犯由于违背共同故意要件因而不属于共同犯罪,其不能对保险诈骗罪第4款的法律性质作出合理的解释。保险诈骗罪第4款既不属于法律拟制和注意规定,也不属于想象竞合和法规竞合,其是法律文本主义的当然解释,亦是大竞合理论下,适用从一重处断原则的当然结果。     

司法假定理论基础的学科交叉透视

司法假定是法官在裁判过程中作出初步判断的基本思维方式,本质上为法官职业判断能力的体现.以司法假定问题为导向来聚合人文社会科学中的相关理论,各理论所采取的见解与态度给司法假定的理论基础研究带来有益启示.通过法学、心理学、哲学、经济学、历史社会学等多学科沟通意义上的描述及评价,就可很好地把握透视司法假定的理论来源.     

What comes first,democracy or human rights?

Minimalists about human rights hold that a state can have political legitimacy if it protects a basic list of rights and democratic rights do not have to be on that list. In this paper, I consider two arguments from Benhabib against the minimalist view. The first is that a political community cannot be said to have self-determination, which minimalists take to be the value at the heart of legitimacy, without democracy. The second is that even the human rights protections minimalists take to legitimize institutions cannot be had without democracy. These rights can only be adequately interpreted and specified for any social context if the interpretations and specifications result from democratic processes. Here, I bring out some important problems with these arguments and so conclude that they do not represent a robust case for rejecting minimalism.