雅典民主的极端及其启示

本文通过对雅典民主的分析研究,从中得出致使雅典民主为人诟病的几个极端及其表现:对个人权威的过分警醒,导致雅典民主对人的不尊重;对多数决的毫无控制,导致多数人对少数人的暴政;对私人空间的肆意践踏,导致政治对私人生活无孔不入,抑制了人性的自由。这种种弊端无疑给我们完善社会主义民主以启示:加强对个人人格的尊重,加强对权力的制约,形成市民社会与政治国家的分离,保障人的权利和自由。     

民主市场的交易规则——以代表机关的议决原则为中心

多数决原则把保护作用与效率融为一体 ,所以常常被选定为代表机关的最合适的议决规则 ,它不仅使多数人的意志得到贯彻和执行 ,同时还意味着对少数人意志和权利的平等尊重和保护。多数决原则在实践中有着不同的模式与变异 ;一个国家采用何种类别的多数规则 ,要看其要求何种程度的效率与保护才能确定。我国表决议案一律由代表机关全体成员的过半数通过 ,这是我国民主的广泛性和真实性的具体表现 ,但又存在着值得改进之处。     

民主的回归:破除对多数决与代议制的迷信

民主意味着国家主权来源于人民,它仅和"公意"有关。多数决原则是社会组织或者共同体一种决策手段,它与民主不具有必然联系。代议制赋予人民选择代表的自由,但人民并无法掌握国家权力,其结果是形成精英贵族而不是实现民主。社会主义国家应该真正实现人民掌握国家权力,走自己的民主发展道路,而不是迷信西方代议制。     

民主的回归：破除对多数决与代议制的迷信

民主意味着国家主权来源于人民，它仅和“公意”有关。多数决原则是社会组织或者共同体一种决策手段，它与民主不具有必然联系。代议制赋予人民选择代表的自由，但人民并无法掌握国家权力，其结果是形成精英贵族而不是实现民主。社会主义国家应该真正实现人民掌握国家权力，走自己的民主发展道路，而不是迷信西方代议制。     

过程民主化自我革命：党的政治领导法规之共同体价值论

党的政治领导法规作为执政党在政治建设目标、方向上的革新性规范表达,旨在设定巩固政治领导所涉功能目标层面的自我革命事项,并往往外化至执政党领导下的依宪执政共同体来予以确证。可依循全过程人民民主功能目标定位下的过程民主化自我革命策略指引,从民主认同维度的共同体价值认同规范和民主创新维度的共同体价值创新规范这两个方面,来阐明党的政治领导法规的事项范围。共同体价值认同规范作为一种预设权威创制规范设定,具体指向实现价值层面宣示与教化的政治领导法规,以达到相应政治合法性基础的有机融合。共同体价值创新规范则作为一种预设权威变迁规范设定,具体指向实现价值层面形式与方法创新的政治领导法规,以切实推动执政党价值革新。基于此,应通过明晰这两个方面的规范事项表达要旨,来检视、固化全过程人民民主实践导向下人民民主与执政党领导的辩证统一。     

论司法的功能体系及其优化

司法参与社会治理以司法功能的发挥为前提,司法本身具有哪些功能,这是司法机关参与社会治理所依托的手段.实际上,司法具有政治功能,其是国家意志的表达方式;司法具有民主功能,是维护民主体制的重要力量;司法的法律功能则表现为其对法律之统一适用上.司法参与社会治理过程中三者不可偏废其一,且需要植入具有统摄力的价值内核.人权保障价值的植入则为三项功能的整合提供可能,在此基础上,立足于审判过程中的人权保障,司法的国家意志表达、民意整合和法律统一适用等诸功能的拓展方具有正当性基础.     

国际私法上意思自治原则的法哲学分析

本文从法哲学的角度出发 ,考察了意思自治原则的历史源流 ,认为就其本质而言 ,意思自治原则可理解为每一个社会成员依自己的理性判断 ,管理自己的事务 ,在遵循强行法的前提下 ,国家与其他个人不得对他的这种自由意志加以干涉。在价值层面上 ,本文认为意思自治原则对于中国的法治建设 ,建立成熟的市场经济和增进全球范围内法律的趋同都具有十分重要的作用。最后 ,作者还阐明了该原则适用领域的两个最新发展动向。     

律师职业与法治的辨思

法治与人治是两种相互对立的治国方略。人治是一人(或几人)之治(君主专制或贵族政治),法治是众人之治(民主政治);人治依据的是领导人个人的意志,法治依据的则是体现人民大众意志的法律。人治与法治的分界线是:当法律与当权者的个人意志发生冲突时,是个人意志凌驾于法律之上,还是法律高于个人意志。或者说,是“法依人”还是“人依法”。“一般说来,在国家管理中,偏重于人的作用还是偏重于法的作用;在个人意志与法律冲突时,是个人意志凌驾于法律之上,还是法律权威高于个人意志;这就是我们说的‘人治’和‘法治’的区别。”作为一种社会调控方…     

论股东大会的概念

股东大会作为由公司全体股东组成的对公司重大事务进行决策的机制在本质上并不是＂机构＂,而是一种制度,是股东民主的制度形式。股东大会与政治国家中的立法机关（议会）具有本质性的差别,在理论上不能将其类比为立法机关（议会）,而应当将其视为一种类似于＂全民公决＂的重大事项决策机制。股东大会作为股东民主的制度形式只能采用多数决的规则,决定了股东大会制度面临着与政治民主制度同样的问题,即如何保护少数派（股东）的利益。     

私人自治的政治哲学之维

从政治哲学视角来看,私人自治具有个人性与消极性,即为一种个人自由与消极自由,而非集体自由与积极自由。私人自治的原则化实系国家向私人让渡部分立法权,使私人分享立法权,成为立法者,得藉其自主的立法行为创设规律私人关系的规范;国家虽然也要控制私人立法质量,但法定的控制规范较为形式与空洞,私人的立法意志而非国家意志才具有至尊地位。这同时也说明是私人意志而非国家意志才是法律行为发生法律效力的根源。为保障私人自治计,私法中公权力的运作应保持谦抑性,这一品性对民事立法者与司法者提出了多诉诸合意机制而少运用强制工具、慎重设立强制性规范、不以分配正义为念、审慎适用不确定概念或概括条款、对强制性规范奉行严格解释规则、将私法强制性规范区分为权限规范与行为规范、重视司法形式主义的价值等要求。     

The Legal Dimensions of Whole-Process People’s Democracy

The concept of whole-process people’s democracy can be analyzed in terms of four the rule of law dimensions: continuous democracy, authentic democracy, extensive democracy and consultative democracy. Continuous democracy means that democracy provides a continuous and uninterrupted mechanism in terms of stage, time and space, which can ensure the continuous participation of the people in the management of state and social affairs. Authentic democracy is not only embodied creation of opportunities and conditions for the people to have more channels and methods of participation in the management of state and social affairs, but is also reflected in the process of democratic practice, including the protection of legitimate rights and interests of the minority. Extensive democracy means that the people are fully and deeply involved in the management of state and social affairs as well as their own affairs, from the operation of the state system to social life at the community level, and from pre-election to post-election. Consultative democracy is a means of realizing people’s democracy in the whole process. It applies consultation and seeks truth, aiming at building consensus. Moreover, it integrates various channels of consultation, and integrates democracy into all aspects of the work of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and government and in all aspects of the people’s political and social life.     

Promoting Whole-Process People’s Democracy Following the Rule of Law

Whole-process people’s democracy profoundly reflects the features of socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics, and comprehensively and systematically reveals the concept of people’s democracy as providing important mechanisms of national and social governance. Based on the traditional democratic understanding of democracy as majority rule, whole-process people’s democracy emphasizes the universality and extensive range of democratic governance, but also has the natural value defects of democratic value itself. Therefore, we must organically combine democracy with the values of the rule of law and human rights, to build a well-defined governance order based on people’s democratic value. The whole process in the “whole-process people’s democracy” has really resolved the situation of people’s “absence” from many links of state power operation caused by over-emphasizing the election-democracy in the Western capitalist democratic system. Through the people’s extensive participation and effective supervision, the state power operation mechanism based on the fundamental political system, the people’s congress system, has been ensured to be always in the framework of people’s democratic governance. This effectively realizes the people’s sovereignty and is consistent with the declaration that “all power in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) belongs to the people,” stipulated in the Constitution of China. To improve the governance efficiency of whole-process people’s democracy in practice, we must bring it onto the rule of law, and use the rule of law philosophy and methods to reasonably and effectively resolve all kinds of theoretical and practical problems.     

法治视野下的网络反腐

网络反腐法治化建设的宪政意义在于它是电子民主时代公民参政权的重要展现。参政权作为宪法及法律规定的现代社会公民享有的基本权利,在于确认和保障公民参与国家管理及社会事务的管理,监督和抑制权力滥用及其腐败。电子民主时代,网络参政拓宽了公民民主参与的渠道,公民参政权的实现变得切实可行。网络反腐法治化有利于公民参政权的落实,进而有力地推进民主监督制度的发展。网络反腐法治化的基本理念包括公众参与、规范统一、网民保护、信息公开,而建立健全网络反腐的法律制度,保护并激励网络举报人是其法治化的路径选择。     

传统与转型：坚守正义、守护良知和维护荣誉

律师是法律职业共同体中的一员,既要代表和维护委托人的利益,又要看重正义和司法公正。律师应当成为社会的一个阶层,构成一个重要的社会群体,构成公民社会一个最成熟的层面,成为反对专制和建设民主的重要社会力量。新世纪初,中国律师随社会政治转型再次面临新的转型,律师将从传统职业角色中走出来．部分地转向社会公共事务和政治生活。律师职业转型应当适度保持传统本色,以实现社会正义为根本使命,以守护社会良知为职业本分,以维护共同体的荣誉为最高利益。     

Reflective Judgement and Prudential Rationality: A Contribution to an Inclusive Practical Application of Law

Hannah Arendt has developed a theory of the importance of judgment of taste for political manners, founded on the Kantian aesthetic theory. Nowadays this theory is considered a current theoretical reference for establishing a political way to reconcile the demands of the radicalization of deliberative democracy with the need for political inclusion (Iris Marion Young, Seyla Benhabib). Albena Azmanova in her The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment proposes an inclusive political rhetoric. The political theory founded on judgment is based on Kant’s philosophy; it was developed by Arendt and has greatly influenced the current debate, as an alternative theory in which the moral basis of law can be more sensitive to human contexts; a universalist theory more adequate for dealing with the tragic dimension of human life. The theory of political judgment uses the concepts of reflective judgment and ‘enlarged thought’ as its main concepts. As a starting point, a theory like this considers the singular judgments of justice that each person makes. The background, therefore, is not a rational foundation of principles, but the capacity of rational beings to make judgments. This post-metaphysical theory of law, based on a theory of judgment, is a critique of legal positivism, but presents itself as an alternative to the idealistic theory of law. But this theoretical project has received some criticism related to the adequacy of Arendt’s rereading of Kantian philosophy and her attempt to approximate Kant’s reflective judgment to the Aristotelian concept of phronêsis. Some critics, such as Bryan Garsten, believe that Kant’s rhetoric of public reason diminished and displaced the prudential faculty of judgment that Arendt is to be interested in reviving. Arendt’s attempt to find a theory of judgment in Kant’s aesthetic theory is not successful, in Garsten’s view. Our purpose is to show that a critical theory of judicial judgment is not only possible, but necessary; Arendt’s theory of judgment offers an important contribution to a critical theory of judicial judgment, particularly one devoted to the construction of a legal theory that prioritizes a politics of social inclusion. This theory proposes a critical approach to the project of the procedural conception of democracy, since it can mask social exclusion. An adequate understanding of judicial argumentation cannot forget that it happens in a rhetorical context: it is not only important what a discourse says, but how it says it. The radicalization of deliberative democracy supposes a revision of the ways judicial deliberation is thought: not by reference to universal or at least general principles, but taking into consideration what is ‘critically relevant’, with a view to remedying social injustice (following Azmanova).

     

法治的量化分析——法治指数衡量体系全球经验与中国应用

指数是衡量全球各国经济、政治走势的重要尺度,各种类型的指数从某种程度上精确折射着社会生存的客观真实状态。在民主、法治等社会科学领域始终缺少一种定量分析的研究方法。法治在进入高速发展的信息化时代之后,我们应改变传统抽象法治观念的思维,并突破不同文化间法治价值观念的屏障,将法治理念贯穿至具体的指数模型之中。法治指数体系中囊括了诸如民主指数、腐败指数等一系列精确、稳定的指数样本。本文从全球具有较大影响力的法治指数出发并结合中国的基本国情进行方法论上分析与探索,为当今中国寻找一种新型、理想的法治发展路径。     

新权威主义、立宪政体与东亚法治转型

20世纪70年代东亚国家的新权威主义政体在政治集权、经济自由、开放意识形态的基础上实现了经济飞跃和社会发展。虽然新权威主义政体并不排斥民主和法治,且宪法均获得了名义上的权威,但由于经济发展和社会稳定的优先战略,东亚国家政治结构呈现出民主工具主义和"国家主义法治"的症状。在20世纪末期的第三波民主化浪潮中,东亚各国通过立宪主义的方式实现了民主主义的政治转型。     

我国政法教育的变迁与展望

政法教育形成于1950年代,基于巩固新生政权的需要,它为政法工作培养专门干部。与政法工作强调政治性一样,政法教育是强调政治性的法学教育,非常重视党的政治路线和组织纪律教育。改革开放后,法学教育日趋强调专业化、职业化。20世纪80年代,仍继续强调政治性。这与当时的社会治安形势及“严打”刑事政策有一定关系。1990年代以后,政治性在政法教育中日渐淡出,法学教育趋向服务市场经济的专业化。新时代的治国理政,在法治领域创造了一系列新实践,法治思维和法治方式运用深入政治领域,国家和社会治理广泛纳入全面依法治国范畴,涉外法治深度关联国际政治、国际关系。这些实践造就了强调政治性的大法治工作格局,对法学教育提出了新要求,催生了新政法教育。党内法规学、纪检监察学、国家安全学、社会治理法学等新学科应运而生,人权法学、知识产权法学等学科应需更新。新政法教育与专业化法学教育并行,扩展了法学教育的领地。     

Flagging Democracy

Because of the globalisation of social life, various scholars are developing models for the globalisation of democracy. The need for this lies in the increasing inability of governments to rule. National politics reacts rather than acts. This article does not dispute the misfit of social, political, legal, economic and environmental structures, and its related problems; it does dispute, however, the idea that a solution can be found in scaling up democracy to international proportions. The signifier 'democracy', although increasingly flouting, had become predominant in International Relations discourse. For serious application beyond rhetoric in international relations, this notion of democracy should be split up in concrete indicators, such as transparency, accountability and respect for Human Rights. Moreover, aspiring international democracy ignores that the presence of a central authority (that can be held accountable and responsible) is a precondition inherent to the concept of democracy. Creating this precondition may be worse than the perils of globalisation.     

The inverted postnational constellation: Identitarian populism in context

As exemplified by the pan‐European ‘Identitarian movement’ (IM), contemporary far‐right populism defies the habitual matrix within which right‐wing radicalism has been criticised as a negation of liberal cosmopolitanism. The IM's political stance amalgamates features of cultural liberalism and racialist xenophobia into a defence of ‘European way of life.’ We offer an alternative decoding of the phenomenon by drawing on Jürgen Habermas's ‘postnational constellation.’ It casts the IM's protectionist qua chauvinistic populism as ‘inverted’ postnationalism, engendered through territorial and ethnic appropriation of universal political values. As such, inclusionary ideals of cosmopolitan liberalism and democracy purporting humanistic postnationalism have been transformed by Identitarians into elements of a privileged civilisational life‐style to be protected from ‘intruders.’ Remaining within the remit of the grammar of the postnational constellation, trans‐European chauvinism, we contend, is susceptible to inclusive articulation. Foregrounding radical emancipatory social transformation would however require not more democracy, but a principled critique of capitalism.