Normative Institutionalism and Normative Realism. A Comparison*

Abstract
MacCormick and Weinberger's normative institutionalism, or neo-institutionalist theory, is propounded as "a socially realistic development of normativism." This theory blends normativism and realism and represents the coherent outcome of two components of each author's thought: normativism from the standpoint of legal theory; neo-empiricism from the standpoint of philosophy generally. Scandinavian legal realism, or normative realism, is the only school of jurisprudence that can be understood as a direct offspring of one of the philosophical currents (i.e., the Uppsala school) belonging to contemporary neo-empiricism. This is why it inevitably becomes a touchstone for those legal theories – like MacCormick and Weinberger's neo-institutionalist theory–which are not direct offshoots, but owe much to the principles and methods of neo-empiricism.     

融贯论、道德实在与法律——一个基于内在实在主义的整合

不同的真理理论导致不同的法律方法论。符合论实在主义的哲学会导致哲学的和自然主义的法律发现,而融贯论则是规范分析和法律解释的基础。不少哲学家认为没有脱离融贯论的符合论(如普特南)。但同时,从真理的客观性维度讲,融贯论只能保障认知的客观性,而不能获得形而上的客观性。融贯论的结果必然是相对主义。因此,法律哲学的认识论选择必然是折中的,这个折中的认识论可以由普特南的内在实在主义来承担,而内在实在主义将最终引向包容的法律实证主义。     

我们需要什么样的民法总则--与德国民法比较

我国民法体系与德国民法体系有重大差异,根本原因是立法理念和思路不同。德国民法体系是以权利为核心构建的,所反映的法律关系理论属于“权利关系”阶段的理论。我国民法是以法律关系为核心构建的,所反映的法律关系理论属于“权利义务责任关系”阶段的理论。从立法技术上看,我国民法体系与德国民法体系有重大差异的根源在于,民法上责任的概念和内涵及责任与义务的关系有重大差异。由于《德国民法典》是以权利为核心构建的,请求权在民法中占有十分重要的地位。我国民法体系是以法律关系为核心构建的,体现为以权利———义务———责任为主线,我国民法上请求权的功能与德国民法上请求权的功能不同。     

后现代主义与加拿大的新现实主义法学

20世纪80年代以来,后现代主义在西方蓬勃发展并对加拿大法学理论界产生影响,形成了加拿大的新现实主义法学。这种法学包含了女权主义法学理论、批判种族主义法学理论、原住民法学理论、同性(双性)恋法学理论和批判残疾人法学理论等形态。     

法律现实主义与转型社会刑事司法

我国社会正处于转型期,各种社会矛盾凸显,刑事司法面临着新的挑战。西方的法律现实主义能为我国转型期刑事司法提供可资借鉴的方法论和改革思路。法律现实主义运动在批评形式主义与三段论式审判的基础上,把法律看作具有多重目标的社会引擎,关注司法行为、纠纷解决与社会问题。在中国语境下,引入法律现实主义,不是要简单地否定形式主义,而是应理性对待形式主义并在其中融入客观主义;应在刑事司法裁判中适用利益权衡,重视经验归纳而不拘泥于简单的演绎推理;应以实现社会正义为核心,构建合理衔接的多元纠纷解决机制。     

贝克的风险社会理论及其启示——评《风险社会》和《世界风险社会》

乌尔里希·贝克的风险社会理论是一种重视制度面向的社会学批判理论,其认识论基础是反思的现实主义,其理论预设是等级秩序的存在.中国以一种特殊的方式开始进入风险社会.风险社会理论透视出中国在现代化反思能力、法律系统、科学理性和社会理性的互动、环境法基本原则方面存在一些问题.     

A Realist View of Hindu Law

Abstract. Hindu law represents one of the least known, yet most sophisticated traditions of legal theory and jurisprudence in world history. Hindu jurisprudential texts contain elaborate and careful philosophical reflections on the nature of law and religion. The nature of Hindu law as a tradition has been subject to some debate and some misunderstanding both within and especially outside of specialist circles. The present essay utilizes the familiar framework of legal realism to describe the fundamental concepts of law and legal procedure in Hindu jurisprudence. Questions about the place of natural law theory and legal positivism in relation to Hindu law are also considered.     

依刑事法律规定而建构的犯罪构成

我国传统的四要件犯罪构成体系是从苏俄犯罪构成理论“翻版”而来,是一个典型的“舶来品”,从这个角度而言,我国从来就没有过一个真正属于自己的犯罪构成理论.在传统的四要件构成理论即将土崩瓦解,而德日犯罪构成理论一时难以被广大学者接受之时,我们应当立足于刑事法律的具体规定以及犯罪构成的基本特征和功能来建构属于我国自己的犯罪构成理论(即:犯罪客观方面——社会危害性——罪过).依此建构的犯罪构成是好是坏,检验的一个简便方法便是将其与精致的、备受不少学者推崇的德日三要件犯罪构成理论进行比较,若两者功能吻合,则这样的犯罪构成或许是可以被接受的.     

不当得利“没有合法根据”之概念澄清——基于“给付”概念的中国法重释

不当得利＂没有合法根据＂的证明责任问题在诉讼法上争议颇多。在探讨＂没有合法根据＂的证明责任问题前,应首先在民法上澄清＂没有合法根据＂的具体所指。我国民法对不当得利的理解受到德日的混合影响,但并未察觉德日对不当得利的理解路径是不同的。德国学说通过物权行为等理论构建,奠定了＂给付＂概念的基础,并进而明确了＂没有合法根据＂的所指。日本法基于自己的判例构建了与德国形似神异的不当得利学说,其＂给付＂及＂没有合法根据＂的所指与德国法不同,并在一定程度上导致了不当得利的＂名不副实＂。我国法不承认物权行为理论,也不应继受日本异化的不当得利理论,应根据我国现有民法制度重释＂给付＂概念,并在此基础上确定不当得利＂没有合法根据＂的具体所指,为其证明责任的确定奠定基础,也为其他诉讼法问题的解决奠定民法基础。     

法的发现与证立

无论是法律现实主义还是决断论,均有明显的非理性主义倾向,因而表现出跟法律论证理论截然相反的研究旨趣。受到科学哲学上相关研究的启示,发现与证立之二分逐渐被法学家引入到法学领域,并成为克服各种非理性主义的重要根据。法的发现与证立之二分同时存在解释学上的依据。通过这种区分,法律论证的范围和目标等基本理论要素大体上就确定下来。这一区分构成法律论证的重要理论基础。     

德国犯罪理论体系概述

德国犯罪理论研究经历了古典理论、原因行为理论、目的行为理论、目的理性论数个阶段 ,其最具特色之处在于分析行为时采用的三分法 :行为构成要件符合性、违法性和罪责。这种三分法在法律现实中经受了考验 ,而且对刑法以外的德国法律思想的发展也起到了重要作用。     

New Legal Realism and the Ethnography of Transnational Law

The new legal realism builds on the strengths of the legal realism of the early twentieth century, viewing law as a set of social processes embedded in historical and political contexts. As it addresses sociolegal phenomena of the early twenty-first century, however, the new legal realism is more attentive to the effects of transnationalism, legal culture, and legal consciousness, and the way ideas and norms travel and are adopted around the world. Asking questions of this kind requires new, more multi-sited or deterritorialized methods of scholarship. This article explores these new perspectives and their methodologies through an examination of the use of human rights in the international movement against violence against women.     

有因行为、无因行为之再思考——以行为之“原因”为突破点

德国法的原因理论以"原因"为核心概念:有因行为的原因实际上被意思表示理论中的效果意思所吸收,在判断法律行为效力方面,其应用价值已经不大;无因行为除了效果意思这个内部原因外,更以效果意思以外的、为其设立义务的基础行为为外部原因。无因行为的内部原因是其合法性依据,而外部原因是其合理性依据。无因性理论制造出"过程"与"结果"相分离的法律现象,又通过不当得利制度,将合法性与合理性再次统一。     

Resistance to European Law and Constitutional Identity in Germany: Herbert Kraus and Solange in its Intellectual Context

This article recasts our understanding of the Federal Constitutional Court's Solange decision by tracing its lineage within the domestic context and as part of a new history of EU law. The external dynamic of the decision, a moment of judicial discourse between two of Europe's highest panels, has been the focus of many studies. Much rarer are attempts to embed the decision within its internal context: the struggle within the German legal academy to accept the primacy of EU law. Central to this contextualisation is the reinvigoration of the ‘structural congruence’ theory of Herbert Kraus, which long shaped the German reception of EU law. This article recounts Kraus' theory, tracing the struggle for the German legal consciousness between three positions: constitutionalists, traditionalists, and the congruence advocates. While Hallstein's constitutionalism is most closely associated with Germany's early Europhilia, even he admitted by 1975 that Kraus had won the day.     

Jhering's Philosophy of Authority

This article offers a critical reassessment of the jurisprudenceof Rudolf von Jhering. During the 20th century, Anglo-Americanlegal philosophers who drew inspiration from Jhering's workusually lauded him either as a German forerunner to Americanlegal realism or as an early proponent of a jurisprudence ofinterests. These representations of his work do not do justiceto Jhering's jurisprudential project. This study demonstratesthat he sought to explain how legal systems originate and howthey maintain authority. It is shown that his explanation oflegal authority depends not only upon familiar jurisprudentialnotions such as reciprocity and positional duty, but also uponthe concept of Rechtsgefühl—namely, the idea thatauthority is conditioned by citizens’ feelings of whatis right or just. Jhering, it is demonstrated, believed thatthe authority of a legal system depends very much on its abilityto negotiate and accommodate struggles based upon feelings ofright—struggles between citizens, between citizens andState, and between States. It is also argued that the mannerin which Jhering relies on the idea of Rechtsgefühl underminesthe received wisdom that he was an interest theorist.     

Realism about the Nature of Law

Legal realism comes in two main versions, namely American legal realism and Scandinavian legal realism. In this article, I shall be concerned with the Scandinavian realists, who were naturalists and non‐cognitivists, and who maintained that conceptual analysis (in a fairly broad sense) is a central task of legal philosophers, and that such analysis must proceed in a naturalist, anti‐metaphysical spirit. Specifically, I want to consider the commitment to ontological naturalism and non‐cognitivism on the part of the Scandinavians and its implications for their view of the nature of law. I argue (i) that the Scandinavians differ from legal positivists in that they reject the idea that there are legal relations, that is, legal entities and properties, and to varying degrees defend the view that law is a matter of human behavior rather than legal norms, and (ii) that they do not and cannot accept the idea that there is a ‘world of the ought’ in Kelsen's sense. I also argue, more specifically, (iii) that the objection to non‐naturalist theories raised by the Scandinavians—that there is and can be no connection between the higher realm of norms and values (the ‘world of the ought’) and the world of time and space—is convincing, and (iv) that Kelsen's introduction of a so‐called modally indifferent substrate does nothing to undermine this objection. In addition, I argue (v) that the Scandinavians can account for the existence of legal relations that do not presuppose the existence of morally binding legal norms by embracing conventionalism about the existence of the sources of law, while pointing out that in doing so they would also be abandoning their legal realism for legal positivism. Finally, I argue (vi) that the implications for legal scholarship of the realist emphasis on human behavior instead of legal norms is not well explained by the realists and appear to amount to little more than a preference for teleological interpretation of legal norms.     

论汉隋间法律文明的转型--以汉隋间的四部《刑法志》为主线

《汉书?刑法志》《晋书?刑法志》《魏书?刑罚志》《隋书?刑法志》既勾勒出秦汉直至隋代这一历史阶段法律发展的宏观景象,又记载了当时法律实践的诸多细节。秦尊法家、汉承秦制后,已经建立起形式法律观。西汉中期以降,儒家法律思想的主导地位逐渐确立,实质法律观逐渐形成。自汉末至晋隋时期,法律儒家化不断加深,由此建立起系统的儒家式君臣法律观和家族主义法律观,并对法律的本体、内容以及形式等产生深刻影响。但实质法律观的内在缺陷,使得法律规范内部冲突不断,司法自由裁量权被滥用,法律实践的正义性存在不足,因此产生法律观再一次转型的内在需求。儒、法法律观由此再呈融合趋势,并建立起法律文本儒家化、司法实践法家化的新形式法律观。这一法律观对隋唐之后的法律秩序、法权关系以及法律稳定性颇具历史影响。     

现实主义法学的批判与建构

法律形式主义曾是美国法学的正统,现实主义法学则从概念、逻辑、规则等多个角度对法律形式主义进行了批判,并以预测模式为中心,提出了个殊主义、目的性司法和对司法过程进行经验主义探究等改革主张,对美国法理学的未来走向影响深远。     

Max Weber on the Labour Contract: Between Realism and Formal Legal Thought

Although Max Weber's review essay of the first part of Philipp Lotmar's The Labour Contract may appear peripheral to his overall contribution to legal sociology, it contains important insights on the relationship of law to economics, the utility of sociological empirical research for jurisprudence, the epistemological gap between 'legal dogmatics' and the sociology of law, and the fundamental distinction between state and non-state law in properly understanding the developmental logic of labour law.
In the review, far from appearing as a rigid partisan of positivistic legal formalism, Weber admits of a kind of 'legal pluralism' as a necessary path to the sociology of law, and allows some measure of realism, when celebrating Lotmar's analysis of the social facts of law as a precondition for proper juristic treatment of the labour contract. Nevertheless, Weber remained distrustful of legal realism which, for him, was founded on an epistemological confusion between 'is' and 'ought'.     

我国侵权责任法的侵权构成模式——以“民事权益”的定位与功能分析为中心

依国内学术界多数观点,由于侵权责任法没有对权益进行区分保护,所以我国侵权责任法的侵权构成模式属于法国法模式。但是否将民事权益作为侵权责任构成要件的判断要素,才是法国法模式与德国法模式的本质区别。我国侵权责任法契合未来民法典的整体布局,明文以民事权益作为侵权责任成立的判断要素,在立法模式上属于德国法模式。但在适用层面,德国法模式未必是一个很好的选择。侵权责任法（尤其是第2条）的独特规定及特色不同于德国法,并缺少与德国民法典第823条第2款和第826条类似的法规范支撑。可依“欧洲侵权法原则”提出的“弹性制度”解释权益的区分保护问题。