Is epistemic accessibility enough? Same-sex marriage,tradition, and the Bible

ABSTRACT

In Liberalism’s Religion, Cécile Laborde argues that a liberal state has to be a justifiable state: state action can only be legitimate if it is publicly justified, that is, if it is based on accessible reasons. These accessible reasons, she argues, are reasons that can be understood by all citizens. She defends a purely epistemic conception of accessibility. On Laborde’s account, accessible reasons are identified by particular epistemic features, and not by their substantive content. In this paper, I argue that Laborde’s account of epistemic accessibility cannot deliver on its promise of public justification. To illustrate this argument, I examine the case of the prohibition of same-sex marriage and look at two potential reasons that could be used to justify this prohibition: the non-accessible reference to the Bible and the accessible appeal to the value of tradition.     

风险社会中刑事立法正当性理论研究

经济的急速发展与社会关系的高度分化使社会呈现出风险的特征,我国刑事立法不得不紧跟社会形势频繁扩张,以应对风险社会隐藏的巨大危险。风险社会中,刑事立法正当性问题的实质在于刑法将一个危险行为作入罪化处理或者使刑罚提前到来的合理依据,解决第一个问题的关键在于如何在立法中把握犯罪化与非犯罪化的界限,解决第二个问题的关键在于如何在立法中把握犯罪性质的界限,即危险犯与实害犯的界限。     

Motives,Reasons, and Responsibility in Hate/Bias Crime Legislation

Hate/bias crimes, according to what we may call the literal interpretation, are crimes distinguished by their connection to a certain kind of motive. Hate crime laws and sentencing provisions state that such motives may result in penalty enhancements. According to the standard objection to hate crime laws, this position is problematic: first, criminal law should not be used to pass moral judgments on motives. Its concern should be with actions as modified by intentions, not with the values and reasons of perpetrators. Second, our motives are not directly responsive to the will, so we should not be held responsible for them. In reply to the second part of the objection, this article defends a version of the literal interpretation of hate crime that conceives of it as acting on a bad reason. Hate crime laws add punishment not for motives/thoughts, but for the decision to treat a patently bad reason (such as racism) as a reason to commit a criminal act. If the act itself is reason-responsive, we can be held responsible for what reasons we act on. Given that the truth or falsity of hate/bias on these grounds is not a disputed matter, we can justify using the criminal law to recognize the moral status of such motives.     

刑罚报应目的之辨证

刑罚目的应当包括报应。刑罚报应目的是刑罚属性的内在要求,是刑法基本原则的题中之义,是刑罚正义的必然体现,对刑罚预防目的具有补充与制约作用。刑罚报应目的的否定论者所提出的理由均不能成立。     

On monarchy

Monarchy is liberalism’s little secret. Given the number of articles and books appearing every year dealing with liberal democracy as the hallmark of contemporary Western societies, it is astonishing that monarchy is rarely ever mentioned despite the fact that monarchy, and not a republic, is the constitutional form of quite a number of Western liberal states. I argue that considering the political reality of the established monarchies in Europe leads into a dilemma: either contemporary liberalism is not the kind of theory it claims to be or it has to reconsider its central tenets. In conclusion, I show that the dilemma cannot be solved or avoided but needs to be embraced by conceiving liberalism not as a applied moral theory but as a political theory that leaves room for various symbolic self-understandings and acknowledges the crooked timber of historical realities.     

论我国非法证据排除程序中检察机关的证明责任——兼论非法证据排除程序对检警模式的影响

＂两个证据规定＂的颁行,推动着我国刑事诉讼制度的进一步完善和发展。《非法证据排除规定》确立了非法证据的排除程序,明确了检察机关的证明责任。检察机关承担非法证据排除的证明责任有着坚实的基础,但为了诉讼的有效进行,应将检察机关对侦查机关的指导、制约和监督提至侦查行为开始时,且二者之间的关系应进行重新定位,这将会给我国现有的检警模式带来不小的冲击和影响。     

Justifying Inequality as Equality: Germany and the Reform of Voting Weights in the Council of the European Union

ABSTRACT

Weighted voting institutionalises inequality in international organisations. How is it possible that states accept rules that formally privilege some over others even though this contradicts the sovereign equality of states and norms of democratic decision-making? This contribution to a special issue about global stratification shows that arguments about equality can actually serve to justify inequality in international institutions. This can be seen in moves by the German government to justify its proposals for a reform of voting in the Council of the European Union (1995–2008). Successive German governments focused on arguments about democracy based on the equality of states and of citizens to justify their push for a more privileged position for Germany in the Council. Efficiency also figured as a justification but was clearly less prominent.     

宪法的溯及力论纲

宪法的溯及力属于宪法法律效力的范畴,是宪法时间效力的一种。关于宪法溯及力,国内外研究成果极其鲜见。在宪政秩序较为发达、违宪审查机制较为成熟的国家,宪法的效力尤其是其溯及效力,已在司法实践中发挥了重要作用。只有对宪法溯及效力进行系统的理论分析,并切实提出其发挥现实作用的机制建构,才能对我国发展宪政、构建和谐社会有所裨益。     

美国疑难宪法案件司法审查的两种模式及其补充——以“个案宪法权利”的证立为视角

疑难宪法案件的形成有其思想和规范渊源。司法审查必须补充演绎正当的大前提,即证立“个案宪法权利”的正当性。宪法解释学模式通过回溯道德权利的理论渊源重构个案中的宪法权利以支持宪法裁判;恢复性民主商谈司法模式主张将制宪者达成宪法原则的民主过程嵌入宪法裁判之中,寄希望法官间通过协商方式达成低限度的理论共识支持未完全理论化司法协议作为裁判的结果。程序主义宪法观将司法审查的合法性置于民主理论的语境中,使司法审查的合法性问题能够在民主的语境中得到缓解。宪法解释学模式的一元论与恢复性民主商谈司法模式的多元论欲满足司法审查所承载的立法与裁判的双重责任,必须将司法审查视为原则的论坛、公共理性的典范,以弥合重新道德化解释与重新民主化商谈之间的裂痕。     

论任意的诉讼担当之法律构造

任意的诉讼担当是对传统当事人确定理论的突破,我国现行法对其的规定较为零散,范围过于狭窄,尚未形成完整的理论体系。究其原因,是因为受到传统当事人确定理论、律师代理制度及诉讼费用制度等限制因素的影响。德日台等大陆法系国家及地区以选定当事人制度和团体诉讼为中心,形成了较为成熟的任意的诉讼担当体系。我国应在完善当事人确定理论的基础上．以代表人诉讼为中心,引入团体诉讼制度,适当扩大任意诉讼担当的适用范围,重构我国任意诉讼担当的理论体系。