回归法律规范:刑事值班律师制度适用问题再反思

目前我国刑事值班律师制度规范背后折射出有权机关抑制辩方权利的倾向。根据法律规范意旨,只要被追诉人没有辩护人,国家就应“强制指派”值班律师介入案件。将“约见”解读为国家指派值班律师需以被追诉人申请为前提,这混淆了律师会见与介入案件的关系,且将国家责任转嫁给个人,弱化了对被追诉人获得最低限度法律援助权利的保障。相关规范性文件将值班律师阅卷权能限定为“查阅”,但基于法律援助法第37条的文义、控辩平等之程序公正底线要求等因素,值班律师阅卷权能还应包括“摘抄”“复制”。《法律援助值班律师工作办法》第10条第2款规定,值班律师有量刑异议时,只要其认可犯罪嫌疑人认罪认罚的自愿性,就应在具结书上签字。这是对值班律师功能“见证化”的公开宣示,与2018年刑事诉讼法第201条的意旨以及值班律师实质性参与量刑协商的改革要求相矛盾。值班律师应被赋予拒绝签字的权利。“实质性参与”应是目前完善值班律师制度的基本方向。     

论良法的恶性循环

人们崇尚良法,期冀良法之治,却在翘首与热望中忘却了良法亦需适宜的土壤。当良法出台后,因土壤导致的“水土不服”很可能让良法之良本身遭到质疑,这是令人尴尬的一种真实。良法如果遭遇故意误读,在司法中将会陷入一种可怕的恶性循环。从这一视角解析实践中的许多案例,能使我们揭开隐于表象后的本质,同时打开索解之结。     

理论构建与论文写作——关于翻译研究的Meta理论思考

Meta理论是研究理论的理论,对于理论的构建起指导作用,因此,Meta理论是一个更高层次的理论。本篇文章试图使用Meta理论的一般原则,对翻译理论的构建提出一些思考。他山之石可以攻玉,相信这一初步研究对翻译研究、翻译教学以及研究生学位论文撰写会有所裨益。     

To Wonderland Through the Looking-glass: Conceiving a Critical Legal Argument for Contractual Justice in the South African Law of Contract †

The aim of this paper is to identify the possible substructure (looking glass/es) of a critical legal argument for contractual justice (Wonderland) in the South African law of contract. South African contract law still fails, ten years after the constitutional transformation, to reflect the constitutional ideals of freedom, equality and human dignity in an acceptable manner. I argue that this disposition places a question mark over the legitimacy of contract law and marginalizes opportunities for the social change envisaged by the Constitution. The paper explores Duncan Kennedy’s Form and Substance-argument and indicates that the reluctance to accommodate these values may be attributable to the fact that the majority of role-players position themselves on the individualism/rules side of Kennedy’s continuum – a paradigm that perceives the law of contract as a body of positivistic rules to be applied neutrally and regardless of the social or socio-economic distortions its application may generate. In an attempt to move away from this traditional approach, the privileged paradigm is criticised. A typical CLS-approach is followed which employs sociology, psychological jurisprudence and game theory to criticise the law from outside the restrictive realms of law itself. Simultaneously, I attempt to illuminate the argument for a shift (step through the looking glass) to another paradigm. I conclude that our judiciary finds itself in a position similar to that of Plato’s prisoners in the cave and will not reach the point where they apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice. Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. †Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice.     

公司对外担保效力的实务解读

《担保法解释》暗含禁止公司为股东与个人债务提供担保之意。在中福实业公司担保案中最高人民法院的思路是:股东会决议通过的公司为公司股东债务提供担保有效。在幸福实业担保案中最高人民法院的立场是:公司股东会决议通过的公司为公司股东债务提供担保也一律无效。最高人民法院在公司对外担保效力问题的立场有些含混。     

命案侦查中警察的心理调适

2004年年初开展的全国公安机关“侦破命案专项行动”使各地公安机关都将“命案必破”作为公安工作的首要任务,面对比以前更加高标准、严要求,公安机关面临更多的压力和更高的工作强度。在命案侦破中,警察将面对巨大的压力;警察在命案侦破中要调节自己的心理状况,以适应工作的要求。     

司法能动性何以实现?——以最高人民法院司法解释为分析基础

司法过程中法官在法律适用中的自由裁量权体现了司法能动性.我国主要是由最高人民法院发布大量抽象性司法解释的方式来指引法官在个案审理中的法律适用,这种司法能动性的行使方式在理论界和实务界引发了一定的争议.我们应当客观地看待我国最高法院的司法解释权,而在未来的发展中,我国应当在纯化现有司法解释体制和审级制度改革的基础上,辅以判例,并逐步扩大法官在个案审理中的法律解释权.     

美国的“政治大棒”与德国的法律程序——后“9·11”时代,美德反恐国际合作第一案之解读

"9·11"事件后,德美看似亲密的反恐合作关系却在德国法院审判"9·11"事件中的国际恐怖嫌疑分子穆特萨迪格和穆祚迪案中陷入了困境。两国政府在反恐策略上的差异为这两个案件的结局规定了方向。德国政府部门拒绝向德国法院提供关键证据,损害了德国检察官的指控能力。美国政府拒绝与德国法院合作,则直接冒犯了德国法院的自尊。由于审判是在德国民众反对美国入侵伊拉克以及阿尔布莱格监狱丑闻之爆发的背景下进行的,德国公共舆论同情被告人,积极影响并支持了法院的判决。这两个案件可以视为德国法院及民众对布什政府所实施的反恐策略的一次大审判,判决结果是布什政府败诉。     

网上查找法律案例的方法与技巧

网上检索法律案例均需要一些分析课题、选择检索工具、选择检索途径的方法和技巧,并一些适用的网站可供选择。     

多学科、兼顾历史与现状、教学相长：南洋研究院华人研究特点与存在问题（2000-2006）

南洋研究院的华侨华人研究体现了多学科、兼顾历史与现状、教学相长的特色。除了经济、历史、政治学(国际关系)等主要学科外,南洋院师生越来越多地借重民族学、宗教学、金融学、人口学、语言学、管理学、图书及版本学等学科理论与方法研究华侨华人。在侧重华侨华人现状研究时,仍继续关注华人史研究。在相关学位课程带动下,硕博生的学位论文研究日益成为南洋院华侨华人研究的重要组成部分。就总体而言,南洋院的华侨华人研究仍呈现创新能力弱、文献单薄、低水平重复等问题,这既是国内文科重量化考核导向的结果,也与研究人员浮躁的学术态度相关。