空白罪状适用的规范性解释——以前置性规范为中心

空白罪状的适用是以法律、法规的前置性规范判断为基础。前置性规范中"国家规定"的法律位阶应进行限制性解释,不包括操作纪律、习惯等非规范性形式;立足于空白罪状双重违法性的结构,依据缓和的违法性理论,前置性规范必须有违法性要件的明确提示,而不必然有刑事责任条款,对前置性规范适用采取以直接补充为主、二次间接补充为辅的限制原则,对于体系有冲突的应以刑法规范和刑法概念为准,坚持刑法解释的独立性品格;按照刑法的实质解释的原理运用以法益为指导目的的解释方法,法益制约着具体空白刑法条文所参照的前置性规范范围,按照法益同一性规则还可以适用的扩张与限缩解释。前置性规范的变动适用中,应承认前置性规范的刑法间接渊源地位,以实质的罪刑法定原则为判断基准,前置性规范的溯及力应按照从旧兼从轻的适用规则。     

刑事赔偿问题探究

本文从法理学的角度对刑事赔偿的原则、功能以及归责原则等基本理论进行探讨 ,作者认为保护人权、依法、迅速赔偿成为指导刑事赔偿的基本原则 ,促进司法权力的规范化运行、调整社会整体和公民个体利益以及预防犯罪是刑事赔偿具有的功能 ,作者主张在判断侵权行为能否承担赔偿责任时应坚持过错责任原则为主和严格责任为辅的归责体系。     

中国行政刑法的立法缺憾与改进

行政刑法之概念为德国学者所首创,但在不同国家有着不同的内涵与外延.中国的行政刑法是指国家为了维护正常的行政管理活动,实现行政管理目的,规定行政犯罪及其刑事责任的法律规范和劳动教养法律规范的总称.中国的行政刑法立法存在着缺乏与一般行政法条款衔接、缺乏行政违法责任与行政犯罪责任竞合的明确规定、法定刑设置过高、对于法人犯罪的刑罚措施过于单一、劳动教养制度弊端丛生等诸多问题,需要相应地加以改进.认为应当在立法上对行政刑法和行政法规范进行衔接、明确行政违法责任与行政犯罪责任竞合的处理方法、降低行政犯罪的法定刑并废止其死刑、增加对于法人犯罪的刑罚措施并将劳动教养制度司法化.     

Council of the Chamber of Attorneys of the City of Moscow Disciplinary Proceedings Against Attorney Sh. [Summer 2008]

[Main accusation: showing disrespect for the court.—Eds.]

Being an independent professional adviser on legal questions, an attorney may not be held liable in any way . . . for an opinion expressed by him while carrying on work as an attorney, unless he has been found guilty of a criminal act (inaction) by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.

… According to general principles of jurisprudence in the Russian Federation, and also generally accepted norms of morality (interpersonal intercourse), the legislator presumes constructive cooperation among professional participants in criminal court proceedings, with each of them performing the procedural function assigned to him by law.     

国际航空犯罪法人刑事责任及其国内立法转化研究

2010年《北京公约》和《北京议定书》首次规定了国际航空犯罪法人责任,法人责任以法人的高级管理人员代表法人实施劫持航空器等国际航空犯罪为要件,法人为此承担刑事、民事或行政责任。公约对法人犯罪及其责任的立法需要转化为国内法才能适用。世界各国国内法对法人犯罪及其责任的态度差别较大,英国、加拿大、法国等国刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人刑事责任,德国国内法规定有航空犯罪的法人行政责任,意大利刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人民事责任,我国仅在个别航空犯罪中规定有法人犯罪及其刑事责任。我国法人犯罪及其刑事责任的立法和理论具有较强的包容性,可在我国刑法中取消法人犯罪法定化限制,全面规定包括航空犯罪在内的法人犯罪及其刑事责任。     

论刑法规范谦抑原则

刑法规范谦抑原则主要有四个方面的合理根据,即:它是由刑法在法律体系中的地位决定的,是刑法人道化的要求,是刑法有限性的使然,是刑法经济性的体现。它包括必要性原则与最后性原则两个派生原则。前者要求刑法规范是社会调控确实必要的手段,后者要求刑法规范是在其他法律规范不足以进行社会调控时迫不得已才发挥社会调控功能的手段。其判断标准包括犯罪圈与刑事处分量两个方面。在犯罪圈方面,与之密切相关的主要是禁止处罚不当罚的行为;在刑事处分量方面,与之密切相关的主要是非刑罚化与轻刑化两个问题。     

A Fine Line Between Pleasure and Pain: Would Decriminalising BDSM Permit Nonconsensual Abuse?

The increasing social visibility of Bondage/Domination, Discipline/submission and Sadism/Masochism (BDSM) within Western society has placed pressure on the criminal law to account for why consensual BDSM activities continue to be criminalised where they involve the infliction of even minor injuries on participants. With moralistic and paternalistic justifications for criminalisation falling out of favour, one key justification that is gaining traction within international commentary on BDSM is the “bogus BDSM argument”. The bogus BDSM argument contends that BDSM activities should be criminalised because otherwise false claims of BDSM will be used by defendants to excuse or minimise their criminal liability for nonconsensual abuse. This article refutes this argument by showing how it relies on premises that are unjustifiable, illogical and irrelevant. This article concludes that the decriminalisation of BDSM would not permit nonconsensual abuse so long as legal officials were equipped with sufficient knowledge about the norms and conventions of BDSM culture.

     

定罪概念及原则的刑事一体化思考

从刑事一体化的视角将定罪作为动态的司法活动来考察 ,定罪是指国家专门机关依法定程序与证据 ,根据刑法 ,确定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为是否符合刑法规定的犯罪构成的活动。定罪的主体是国家专门机关 ;定罪的对象是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为 ;定罪的根据包括事实根据及法律根据 ;定罪的内容与目标是确定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的行为是否符合刑法规定的犯罪构成 ;定罪既是司法人员的主观认识过程 ,又充满了法律价值的权衡与选择。定罪的原则包括程序法原则与实体法原则两大组成部分 ,定罪的程序法原则为程序法定原则、证据裁判原则、无罪推定原则 ;定罪的实体法原则包括罪之法定原则、主客观相统一原则、必要性原则。     

通过现有规范解决自动驾驶汽车肇事之刑事责任归属问题

以自动驾驶汽车为代表的人工智能产品在给我们带来便利的同时也带来了新的法律问题。为了解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任问题,学者或是承认自动驾驶汽车的犯罪主体地位,或是建议修改刑法增设罪名。实际上,既有的刑事法律规范足以解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任归属问题。自动驾驶汽车的驾驶人未尽到合理注意义务的,承担过失责任;制造单位生产的自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷或者明知有缺陷而未召回的,承担产品质量相关的刑事责任;使用人发现自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷继续使用的,承担监管过失责任;入侵智能驾驶系统或者利用自动驾驶汽车实施犯罪的,承担故意犯罪的刑事责任。现阶段应克服刑事立法冲动,在既有的刑事法律规范体系内寻求解决方案,更具有现实意义。     

Sources,Recognition and the Unity of the Legal System

A critical analysis of Kelsen’s theory leads to a broad concept of custom, which covers diverse types of customary norms, where the always required conviction of legal bindingness depends on different types of factual and normative reasons. In it we should include a strict concept of custom or legal usage, derogating custom, custom of general international law, custom that establishes an unwritten constitution, custom that establishes a new written constitution, judicial custom which creates a rule of precedent and custom newly expressed in the judicial application of customary rules. The basic norm could be formulated as a constitutive norm: ‘If the norms created through the first historical constitution are effective, then the first historical constitution (and all the norms derived from it) are valid.’ It is thus a customary constitutive rule that recognizes the first historical constitution as valid law. Norms which establish sources of law are constitutive rules, they can be customary norms or legislated norms, but if they are legislated, they have their validity recognized by, directly or indirectly, a constitutive customary norm. By using a broad concept of custom as a conventional practice, Hart implies that general recognition of a customary rule, together with the practice that accompanies it, are sufficient conditions of validity. A doctrine of recognition that is arrived at by means of criticism and a rational reconstruction of the doctrines of Kelsen and Hart regains the essential theses of the traditional recognition theory of Bierling and Engisch.

     

An Economic Analysis of State and Individual Responsibility Under International Law

The international law of state responsibility determines whenstates are liable for international law violations. States aregenerally liable when they have control over the actions ofwrongdoers; thus, the actions of state officials can implicatestate responsibility whereas the acts of private citizens usuallydo not. We argue that the rules of state responsibility havean economic logic similar to that of vicarious liability indomestic law: the law in both cases provides third parties withincentives to control the behavior of wrongdoers whom they canmonitor and influence. We also discuss international legal remediesand individual liability under international criminal law.     

《刑法修正案（九）》第120条前置化规制的法理探析

《刑法修正案（九）》第120条的前置化规制是保护重大法益的必要手段,对其正当性的讨论为当前立法和司法突破和扩张的态势提供了法理依据。敌视社会基本规范和恐怖犯罪的预备或预备的预备行为已呈现出侵害重大法益的抽象危险,具备了前置化规制预备行为的前提要素;在识别敌人刑法争议的根源并加以理性辨别的基础上,从立法目的都是社会要保护自身免受该违法者的侵犯之角度,前置化规制的依据与某些敌人刑法的理念存在有限的内在暗合,但不可否认,尚未成熟的敌人刑法亦与前置化规制存在疏离之处;而敌视基本法规范且具有抽象危险的实质预备犯满足了前置化规制现实依据的要求。其处罚边界亦需遵循,应根据行为方式和特征进行司法定量限制及限缩解释。     

Towards Efficiency in Attributing Criminal Liability to Corporations: Canadian and Brazilian Regimes Compared

This article compares Canadian treatment of corporate criminal liability with that in Brazil, examining whether there are ways in which one system can learn from the other. It is argued that the Canadian model could provide a starting point for revision of Brazilian legal principles in this area that, would encourage the public to recognize that crimes committed by corporations should be taken seriously. However, because criminal liability requires a high burden of proof and is therefore difficult to secure, the Brazilian regime of strict liability may ultimately be useful in encouraging compliance by corporations, assuming sanctions are severe enough and detection of violations by law enforcers is enhanced. The solution may therefore consist in the use of both these regimes, as is currently the case with anticorruption law in the UK.     

论司法规则制定权的确立基础

确立最高人民法院的司法规则制定权具有充分的正当性:从法治实践来看,法律乃是理性有限的人类的建构之物,因而是恒有缺陷的;从法律规范之要求来看,司法不能拒绝裁判;就国民的期待而言,司法必须伸张正义;从司法的运行机制来看,司法职能的实现必然要求司法机关保持相对的独立性与自主性;从比较法的角度来看,司法规则制定权具有一定的普遍性。     

国际刑法的国内立法研究

在国内刑法中确认和体现国际刑法规范是缔约国应尽的国际义务,也是有效打击国际犯罪的需要。国际刑法公约中有关国际犯罪的实体法规定、程序和证据规则的规定、刑事合作的规定、预防性措施的规定等,应当成为国内立法体现国际刑法规范的主要内容。在中国,国内立法确认和体现国际刑法公约的主要途径有制定单行刑事法律、修改补充现有法律条款、立法解释和司法解释等。     

Legal Socialization of Children and Adolescents

Research on children and the law has recently renewed its focus on the development of children's ties to law and legal actors. We identify the developmental process through which these relations develop as legal socialization, a process that unfolds during childhood and adolescence as part of a vector of developmental capital that promotes compliance with the law and cooperation with legal actors. In this paper, we show that ties to the law and perceptions of law and legal actors among children and adolescents change over time and age. We show that neighborhood contexts and experiences with legal actors shape the outcomes of legal socialization. Children report lower ratings of legitimacy of the law and greater legal cynicism when they view interactions with legal actors as unfair and harsh. We show that perceived legitimacy of law and legal authorities shapes compliance with the law, and that these effects covary with social contexts including neighborhood. We identify neighborhood differences in this relationship that reflect differential experiences of children with criminal justice authorities and other social control agents. The results suggest that legal actors may play a role in socialization processes that lead to compliance with or rejection of legal and social norms. An erratum to this article is available at .     

An Empowerment Theory of Legal Norms*

Abstract. Traditionally legal theorists, whenever engaged in controversy, have agreed on one point: legal norms are par excellence rules which impose obligations. The author examines this assumption, which from another perspective (that of constitutional law, for instance) appears less obvious. In fact, constitutional rules are commoniy empowering norms, norms which do not create duties but powers. To this objection many theorists would reply that empowering rules are incomplete and that they are to be understood as parts of duty-creating rules. A different position from this traditional stance is that defended in Kelsen's later writings, according to which the fundamental type of norm is the empowering norm. The author discusses Kelsen's three theories on the “ideal form” or structure of the legal norm, with special attention to the third of these, the empowerment theory.     

Nineteenth-Century Lawyers and Railway Capitalism: Historians and the Use of Legal Cases

Abstract

The railway was a key factor in nineteenth-century economic development. R.W. Kostal considered the interaction of the industry with lawyers in his book Law and English Railway Capitalism 1825–1875. Yet his conclusion that the law coped badly with the new industry is vitiated by his failure properly to analyse the way the courts applied legal doctrine. In areas such as preincorporation liability for railway companies’ debts, rating and compulsory purchase, the courts applied well-established principles. Even new law in cases like Priestley v Fowler can only be understood in terms of common law principles.     

论法律形式与法律渊源的界分

法律形式与法律渊源的关系比较复杂,但是我国学者一般将之作为等同的概念使用。这种观点导致了某些学术上的混乱,也导致法律形式和法律渊源各自的作用没能够充分发挥。正确界定法律渊源和法律形式,是实现二者区分的逻辑起点。法律形式是法律文本的表现方式;法律渊源是裁判规范的集合体,法官从中发现裁决案件所需要的裁判依据和裁判理由。由此可以得出二者之区分:从实践来看,法律渊源之法是指司法之法,法律形式之法是指立法之法;从内容来看,法律渊源之法是具有一定开放性的规则体系,而法律形式则是具有一定封闭性的规则体系;从路径来看,法律渊源之法是在司法适用过程发现和寻找的,法律形式之法是立法中形成的。司法适用之法完全局限于制定法之时,二者会出现种属统一,但是其概念内涵依然有着重大区别。     

论刑法适用中道德评价因素的考量

道德评价能否在刑法适用中予以考虑,是刑事司法中的难题。一方面,道德评价在刑事司法中的体现是普遍存在的实然现象;而另一方面,法治原则一般又要求道德评价不应介入司法领域,否则,依法司法的理念将受到冲击。从理论上来看,道德评价可以在刑法适用解释中予以考虑,与其让道德评价潜在地、非理性地影响刑法的解释与适用,不如理性地承认和接受道德评价因素,并对其规范、限制和合理运用。道德评价因素在刑法解释和适用中的考量既是法理的要求,也是刑法原则所许可的,那种绝对排斥道德评价的观点,看似符合法治原则,但实际上并不能成立。从社会学的视角判断,刑法适用中考量道德评价因素是社会和谐的需求,也是社会学解释方法的题中应有之义。当然,对道德评价的考量与运用,应当在法律方法论的范围内,并在对其认真甄别、选择的基础上进行。