物权法定原则

物权法定原则决定了物权法的基本性质与特征,也严格地限制了当事人在创设新型物权、改变既有物权之内容等方面的意思自由。物权法定原则的内涵是指物权的种类、内容、效力以及公示方法由法律规定,原则上不能由法律之外的规范性文件进行规定,也不能允许当事人自由创设物权的种类以及确定物权的内容、效力和公示方法。作者比较了物权法定模式的表述方式和基本功能,并认为我国物权法中物权法定中的“法”应当被主要限定为法律;司法解释应当具有一定的创设物权的功能;判例不能创设物权。当事人关于物权设定的约定违反物权法定原则的法律后果,应当根据不同的情况来确定。     

Hypothetical intentionalism in statutory interpretation

Intentionalism is the view that an utterance （understood broadly as a spoken phrase, a written text, or even a gesture） means what its utterer intends to mean by it. In the philosophy of language, Grice＇s version of intentionalism rules the day, but intentionalism in statutory interpretation has well-known enemies. Antonin Scalia argues that the search for the intentions of actual legislators destroys the publicity of law and leads judges into fact-finding rather than rule-application. The author argues for a sophisticated version of intentionalism according to which the utterer of law is not an empirical individual or group of individuals but a hypothetical sovereign. The meaning of a legal text is whatever an ideally rational and reasonable communicator would intend to mean by it. By divorcing the meaning of law from the actual intentions of sometimes-conflicted and insincere legislators, this theory preserves the publicity of law and helps avoid fact-finding. Furthermore, it does justice to canons of construction （e.g., ejusdem generis, noscitur a sociis）, which seem to aim at what an ideally rational and reasonable lawgiver would mean by a given legal text. Finally, hypothetical intentionalism accords with actual judicial practice, at least in the United States Supreme Court, where justices often seem to tacitly assume that the utterer of law always expresses her meaning in the best possible way.     

罪刑失衡的源头防治——来自刑事立法角度的分析

罪刑失衡对刑事法治构成严重危害,要防治它,必须首先从立法这个本源入手。立法作为罪刑关系运行的起点,可能构成罪刑失衡的源头。以刑事立法为切入口,有助于从罪刑规范的设计上防治罪刑失衡。     

公共财政下的税收债法理论

国家与财政的公共性密不可分,二者关系的厘清,不仅关系着财政学基本理论的明确,也关系着我国财政法治的实现。而税收债法理论一改国家分配论的权力观,不仅为学界理解税收、税法的基本理论提供了新的思路,更有助于构建有中国特色的社会主义财政法体系。以公共财政为背景,从公共财政的核心及具体要求出发,探讨税收之债的基本涵义,着重分析税收债法概念的引入对于税法原则、税法权利及救济等关系着我国财税法治建设发展进程的重要意义。     

论税收法定原则的司法化

税收法定原则的司法化是“全面落实税收法定原则”的必然要求,而传统理论疏漏了其中的司法内涵,导致税收法定原则出现了作为基本原则却难以直接指导和适用于税收司法的悖论。鉴于税收法定原则与罪刑法定原则的亲缘性,发展相对成熟的罪刑法定原则可以为完善税收法定原则的内涵构成提供三点启示。同时,结合税收法定原则的固有内容,税收法定原则的司法化应当在适用范畴上向司法原则扩围,价值层次上向实质正义升华,法定程度上向相对法定适当松动。据此,三路并进,税收法定原则的司法内涵得以全面、系统的补漏。税收法定原则司法内涵的完善将有助于打破税收法定原则司法化的理论困局,助推“全面落实税收法定原则”法治图景的实现。     

裸刑均值的意义

量刑的实际水平到底低于、等于还是高于法定刑轻重程度，是立法与司法之间诸多关系之一。以21省市77家法院7万多刑事裁量为样本进行观察，可以得出量刑的实际水平显著低于法定刑中线的结论。这个结论可引发一系列理论思考，并成为我国模范判例制度的依据之一。     

德国法学方法论

一般认为,对于一门学术型学科而言,一套方法的存在及由此而形成的方法论至关重要。在德国,法律一直以来都是一门学术型学科。作为被称之为"法学"(字面意思是法律"科学",更确切地说是有关法律的学问)的研究对象,法律以具有一套专门的法学方法论为其特征。在德国大学法学院中,法学方法论是一门非常重要的讲授科目,且围绕这门课程有大量的法学文献。这些文献所讨论的是德国法律人如何(或者更准确地说:应该如何)开展法律工作。德语文献相关讨论中的一个特殊之处在于,在概念上区分"法律解释"与"法的续造"。方法论的讨论涉及制定法解释的各种相关要素、先决条件、不同层级,以及法的续造的合法性等问题。除此之外,还应意识到,对于德国法方法论的讨论是在不同的政治发展历程下展开的。基于此,本文从以下五个一般性话题展开对方法论的讨论:第一,德国、瑞士以及奥地利在方法论上的共性;第二,方法论讨论的规范特征;第三,不同法律领域中所出现的方法论上的差异;第四,法教义学与法学方法论的关系;第五,德国所讨论问题的历史背景。     

For fear of popular politics? Public attention and the delegation of authority to the United States executive branch

Legislators are thought to delegate policymaking authority to administrative actors either to avoid blame for controversial policy or to secure policy outcomes. This study tests these competing perspectives and establishes that public attention to policymaking is a powerful predictor of the extent to which significant United States statutes delegate authority to the executive branch. Consistent with the policy‐concerns perspective, by one calculation statutes dealing with high‐attention issues entail 48 percent fewer delegating provisions than statutes dealing with low‐attention issues – a far stronger relationship than is typically found in the delegation literature. As per the blame‐avoidance perspective, a number of additional analyses yield results consistent with the notion that fears about future public attention motivate statutory delegation if legislative conflict is sufficiently great. Overall, however, the results suggest that conflict typically is not sufficiently great and that legislators are generally more inclined to limit statutory delegation when the public is paying attention.