我国刑事和解的正当性解构

刑事和解为近年来我国实践部门探索的解决刑事案件的新途径。刑事和解在我国的适用,具有正当性基础,具体表现在:构建和谐社会理论和宽严相济为刑事和解正当性提供了理论依据和政策基础,刑事和解有助于和谐社会的构建,有利于贯彻宽严相济刑事司法政策;刑事和解是我国司法现实的需要,是实现利益兼得、有效化解矛盾、解决司法资源紧缺问题的重要途径,也是联合国所提倡的,各国通行的解决刑事纠纷的方式之一;刑事和解与传统刑事司法理论并不相悖,体现了解决刑事案件方式的多元化和价值追求的多元化。     

共和国法治认识的逻辑展开

与法治的实践需求相呼应，人们的法治认识展现为正名法治、定义法治和量化法治三个主题环节，既共时共存，又陈陈相因、推演张开。其中，正名法治围绕着法律、法制和法治三个概念构成的思维链条展开，定义法治基于普世主义和国情主义两种对应的立场和思路进行，量化法治则是当下意图更加具体直接地连接法治实践的另辟蹊径的努力。总体说来，共和国的法治认识进程，已经使得法治作为问题在理论逻辑上完整展示开来；从结果看，完成了对法治的正当性正名，凸显了法治定义上的立场和观点分歧，开始了对法治实践的量化探索。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

论警察权的重构

现代法治的核心是制约国家权力,保障公民权利。建立在市场经济基础之上的法治政府必然要求规范、限制警察权,从而最大限度地保障公民权。随着传统体制向社会主义市场经济的转型,我国当前警察权力结构体系中与建设法治政府目标不协调的方面日益凸显。因此,从对警察权的规制入手,探讨以建立社会主义民主法治为目的、以市场经济要求为导向的警察权的重新构建就显得非常重要。     

The Development of System Justification in the Developing World

System justification theorists have proposed that under some circumstances ‘‘people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it’’ Jost et al. (2003). These claims are contrary to theories that suggest that group members seek to enhance their self-interest or group-interest (e.g., realistic group conflict theory, rational choice models). The present study, conducted in one of the poorest countries in the world, Bolivia, tested if even the most impoverished people of the world will endorse beliefs justifying the status quo. A survey of 356 Bolivian school children found that low-status children endorse beliefs in the effectiveness of government in meeting the people’s needs more than their high-status counterparts. The results suggest that system-justifying beliefs are endorsed by low-status group members in even the most extreme cases of poverty, and even among the youngest politically aware members of society, and they raise questions about the capacity for true social change in those parts of the world that may need it the most.

The Politics of Justice and the Paradox of Justification

Pluralism, (normative) uncertainty, and disagreement are all widely held to constitute major obstacles for gaining assent to policy choices, especially when they concern legitimation-sensitive issues and hence are in particular need of a sound justification. Plausible as it appears to be, in the present article I argue that this belief may reflect only half of the truth, because the very forces that are held responsible for the erosion of consent often also seem to serve as justificatory resources, opening the door for a wide range of policy options that it would not be possible to sell if it were always unambiguously clear what ought to be done. Some empirical examples are discussed to illustrate how this paradoxical logic of justification works in practice.     

程序保障与法官自由裁量权的正当化

法官自由裁量权的正当化,是指通过法官自由裁量权的行使而得出的最终结论(判决)能够获得一种法律上的权威,这种法律上的权威能够使得判决被诉讼当事人及社会承认和接受。对司法程序的服从,是法官自由裁量权得以正当化的最重要条件,这与司法活动的过程与性质相关。司法的产生与某种公平观念存在着重要联系,而在司法场域内,当事人的公平观总是对立的,这就需要一种方式,对这种对立的公平观进行消弭。在现代法治语境里,程序是人类目前所能找到的消除这种对立的最好的方法,而法官自由裁量权的正当性也将依赖于程序而获得。     

Placating the Powerless: Effects of Legitimate and Illegitimate Explanation on Affect,Memory, and Stereotyping

In an experimental study involving power differences between groups, the effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanations for power were investigated on measures of affect, stereotyping, and memory. We found that powerless groups reported more positive affect (relative to negative affect) when explanations were provided for their powerlessness, whether these explanations were classified a priori as either legitimate or illegitimate. Members of powerless groups also attributed greater intelligence and responsibility to the outgroup when it was in a position of high power rather than equal power, and these effects on stereotyping were enhanced when explanations for the power differences were provided. Finally, research participants tended to misremember the reasons given for the power differences as more legitimate than they actually were. These results support a system justification theory of intergroup behavior (Jost and Banaji [1994] Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33:1–27) in that people seem to imbue placebic explanations with legitimacy, use stereotypes to rationalize power differences, and exhibit biases in memory such that the status quo is increasingly legitimized over time.