“重要性理论”之梳理与批判——基于德国公法学理论的检视

"法律保留"理论关乎民主和法治诉求的实现,随着宪政国家框架下对基本权利的认识,其转变为围绕基本权利保护而展开的权力正当性探索。德国联邦宪法法院的"重要性理论"推进了一种围绕着基本权利保护但又与机构功能相符的权能分配的考量可能。但"重要性理论"的区分标准缺少清楚性和可预期性,这一致命的理论弱点,导致它最终成为了空白公式。"重要的"这个概念没能真正实现法教义学之目的,只能作为法律实践中有启发性的概念。     

不确定性:创新发展的价值与寻求

不确定性,即发展处于不稳定状态中,行为的结果具有不可预知的风险性,表现为无序性、差异性、随机性、模糊性和不可预见性等。不确定性是普遍的现象,复杂的不确定性给发展带来了困难,但也带来了创新的动力与挑战。本文从不确定性在发展实践中的反映,不确定性对创新发展的重要价值,以及在不确定性中进行确定性探寻的基本路径与方法等视角入手,表明不确定性不是阻碍科学前行的障碍,而是创新发展的动力,应该视不确定性为友而不是对抗。发展需要将人们领到安全的确定性地带,探寻确定性不能将不确定性纳入思维定势和成见之中,必须创新发展观念和发展方式。     

纯粹法理论语境下的法律解释

凯尔森在纯粹法语境之下,对法律解释进行了分析。由于凯尔森法律体系理论和研究方法具有法律科学纯粹性,因此法律解释理论也是具有自身纯粹性。尽管不同学者对其抱有悲观态度,同时凯尔森对其论述着墨不多,但是凯尔森法律解释理论可谓是独辟蹊径。这种建立在纯粹法体系之上法律解释是形式的、结果的解释理论。凯尔森的法律解释是对自由法学中法律漏洞理论的一个回应。凯尔森认为法律解释存在于法律适用整个过程,但不可能用于漏洞填补。     

What does a digital forensics opinion look like? A comparative study of digital forensics and forensic science reporting practices

This study explores digital forensics (DF) reporting practices and compares the results with other forensic science disciplines. Forty reports were obtained from a quasi-experiment involving DF examiners, and a quantitative content analysis was performed to determine which conclusion types they applied and which content they included with relevance to the credibility of the reported results. A qualitative analysis was performed to examine the certainty expressions used in the conclusions. The results were compared to a study of eight forensic science disciplines performed by Bali et al. [24,26]. The results show that the DF examiners tend to present their conclusions either as Categorical conclusion or Strength of support (SoS) conclusion types and that they address source, activity, and offence level issues in their conclusions. The content analysis indicates deficiencies in DF reporting practices, and several of the challenges seem to be shared with other FS disciplines. The analysis of certainty expressions showed that a plethora of expressions was used, and that they lacked reference to an established framework. The results indicate that more research on DF evaluation and reporting practices is necessary and justifies a need for enhanced focus on quality control and peer review within the DF discipline.