“韦伯命题”之争及其启示

上世纪初,韦伯提出并论证了韦伯命题——中国司法属于非形式主义的卡迪司法。近百年以后,中国大陆就这一命题的真伪进行了长达10多年的高水准学术论辩。如果正确理解了韦伯社会学思想的核心概念——理想类型——及其衍生的卡迪司法的真谛,并运用整体的观念来评价中国司法,则韦伯命题的成立是无可置疑的,否定论者所列举的实证材料,并不是韦伯立论的基点。韦伯命题之争有复杂的时代背景,它的背后涉及法律文化是否存在普适性价值、不同时空中的法律文化是否存在可比性、如何客观认知和理性对待本族法律文化传统、法律现代化是否可欲及其价值取向等重大的法理问题,特别是对形式主义司法的认知与评价这一重大的司法哲学问题。这些与中国司法未来走向息息相关的时代性问题都值得法学界认真对待。     

理想图景与正义问题——《中国法学向何处去》读后

通过对中国法学自1978年以来26年间的这一个时代的批判,邓正来提出了一种以社会秩序的建构及其正当性为核心问题的中国法律哲学观,其任务是建构一种"中国法律理想图景".以"中国法学向何处去"为主题的系列论文,不仅强调了世界结构是这种法律哲学观的历史性条件,还隐含着建构"中国法律理想图景"必须考虑的三类正义问题.     

论"非羁押式强制措施"的刑期折抵——以权利保障为视角

我国的刑事法律仅规定"羁押"的日期应当在被告人被判处的自由刑中予以折抵,而将取保候审、监视居住这样的"非羁押式强制措施"限制人身自由的日期排除于折抵刑期之外.从刑事司法公正、被追诉人的权利保障及权利与义务的对等性三方面论述"非羁押式强制措施"应予折抵刑期的合理性和正当性,并提出具体的立法建议.     

Obtaining redress for abuse of office in Russia: The Soviet legacy and the long road to administrative justice

This article examines the options for redressing abuse of office available to citizens in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. I consider the courts, the procuracy, and the complaint mechanism as sites for citizens to lodge claims against abuse of office in late-Soviet and post-Soviet times. After the collapse of the Soviet system there was an attempt to overcome the Soviet legacy, to strengthen legal institutions and establish administrative justice. Analysis of Soviet and post-Soviet normative documents and statistical data allows us to argue that opportunities for Russian citizens to combat service crimes in the courts have improved substantially. However, the system for coping with abuse of office remains imperfect, and retains features of the Soviet legacy despite vague legislation about administrative justice and dual ways of coping with abuse through legal and quasi-legal mechanisms. The re-establishment of the complaint mechanism in the conditions of contemporary Russia exacerbates this imperfection. Overall, the complaint mechanism occupies a significant place in people's options for making claims against officials, especially claims against high-ranking officials.     

The Penal Voluntary Sector in England and Wales: Adaptation to Unsettlement and Austerity

This article draws on some findings from research which investigated penal voluntary sector adaptation to the mixed market in criminal justice services. The article firstly reprises the main trends for aligning state relationships with the voluntary sector from the 1980s to the present. We then outline some findings about adaptive experiences, situations and practices of the voluntary sector in criminal justice resettlement in the light of considerable upheaval. The research found that service providing voluntary sector organisations (VSOs) either outwardly comply with, or, in a minority of cases, actively embrace, competitive marketised models of service delivery. Secondly, the sector has normalised commercial approaches to organisational efficiency as well as aligned with bureaucratic practices common to the statutory sector. Despite charges that they are effectively co‐opted by both state and market interests, many have reported conflicts between prioritising long‐term financial viability with their founding ‘ethos and values’. We conclude that while many VSOs have successfully adjusted to market and bureaucratic norms, aspects of that repositioning have been at a cost to their traditions of relative autonomy, localism and distinctiveness, to the possible detriment of a vigorous civil society.     

On the political and democratic preconditions of equal recognition

Alan Patten’s Equal Recognition is a compelling justification of a liberal, procedural conception of recognition. This conception is built upon a convincing conception of moral equality, but it does not offer a full theoretical discussion of recognition. I argue that the liberal recognition provided by Patten is too formal and narrow to address all relevant issues regarding conflicts of recognition in democratic societies. In particular, it does not consider the political and democratic preconditions that should be granted to minority groups or immigrants in order to provide them fair opportunities to effectively (and not only formally) reach equal recognition.     

One measure cannot trump it all: lessons from NATO’s early burden-sharing debates

This paper calls for a qualitative turn in discussing NATO burden-sharing. The paper takes issue with the numerical burden-sharing narrative in NATO and identifies its two main problems. Despite being simple, the 2% defence spending pledge lacks other basic attributes of any contributory system: fairness and effectiveness. Drawing from concepts of distributive justice, the paper analyses NATO’s first burden-sharing debates and demonstrates that due to their qualitatively different capabilities, the allies agreed on an egalitarian ability-to-pay distributive justice. Furthermore, it shows that the allies refrained from implementing fairness in terms of a one-size-fits-all formula, since this simple numerical approach could not produce fair and effective burden-sharing at the same time. Rather, they developed a dynamic framework for optimal sharing. These formative burden-sharing debates provide valuable lessons learned for the current build-up of NATO’s posture: less focused on formal sharing, more concerned with strategic outputs.     

关于搞好行政执法与刑事司法衔接的刍议

加强行政执法与刑事司法衔接的法律监督,是检察机关法律监督职责的重要方面,构建这方面的监督机制,是新时期保民生、保稳定、保发展,学习实践科学发展观的要求,也是法律监督发展的必然要求。为此,要加强监督、转变观念、摆正行政执法与刑事司法的关系,建立监督机制,形成执法监督合力。     

The Victims’ Directive and What Victims Want From Restorative Justice

Following fierce campaigning by victims’ groups, the European Commission has entered into a process of legislative and policy reforms with the aim of repositioning the victim in criminal proceedings. By November 2015, member states will need to have demonstrated that they have modified their domestic laws to give effect to the Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime. For the first time, restorative justice is explicitly regulated at EU legal level, as the Directive aims to establish a baseline for its safe implementation across member states. With this EU-wide policy backdrop and using original data, the article posits evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of the Directive. The research was carried out in 2013–14 as part of the “Restorative Justice in Europe” project co-financed by the European Commission. The research took place in the United Kingdom and combined desk research and qualitative research strategies with victims, while it triangulated its findings with follow-up surveys with offenders and professionals.