Beyond Inclusive Legal Positivism*

In this essay, I characterize the original intervention that became Inclusive Legal Positivism, defend it against a range of powerful objections, explain its contribution to jurisprudence, and display its limitations and its modest jurisprudential significance. I also show how in its original formulations ILP depends on three notions that are either mistaken or inessential to law: the separability thesis, the rule of recognition, and the idea of criteria of legality. The first is false and is in event inessential to legal positivism. The second is inessential to legal positivism. The third is likely inessential to law. I then characterize the central claim of ILP in a way that relies on none of these: ILP is the claim that necessarily social facts determine the determinants of legal content. I show that ILP so conceived leaves the central debates in law largely untouched. I suggest how the most fundamental of these—the question of the normativity of law—at least can be usefully addressed. The essay closes by suggesting that even though one can distinguish the social from the normative dimensions of law, a theory of the nature of law is necessarily an account of the relationship between the two: It is a theory either of the difference that certain distinctive social facts make in normative space, or it is an account of the distinctive normative difference that law makes, and the social and other facts that are necessary to explain that difference. One can distinguish between but one cannot separate the social from the normative aspects of legality.     

The Sheffield School and Discourse Theory: Divergences and Similarities in Legal Idealism/Anti‐Positivism*

Abstract. When first I began this paper, I envisaged it as a fairly straightforward exercise in comparison between the Sheffield School’s and Discourse Theory’s varieties of legal idealism or anti‐positivism (these terms being synonymous for the types of theory that contest positivism’s separation thesis, that is, the contention that there is no necessary conceptual connection between law and morality). One obvious distinction, for example, is between the moral substance at the heart of these respective theories: the Sheffield School’s legal theory being founded on Alan Gewirth’s Principle of Generic Consistency, and Alexy’s theory focusing on Radbruch’s intolerable degree of injustice. However, the more I thought about the two respective theories, the more interested I became in one particular issue: the denial of the separation thesis that constitutes legal idealism. Here, I present a paper which is not so much concerned with the substance of two different types of legal idealism or anti‐positivism, but which focuses on the question of whether and in what way either or both of the theories can correctly be characterised as legal idealist or anti‐positivist. I focus in this paper on two works in particular: Deryck Beyleveld and Roger Brownsword’s Law as a Moral Judgment (1994), and Robert Alexy’s The Argument from Injustice (2002).     

走向规范性的法律实证主义--超越哈特与德沃金之争

两个平庸的人相遇或者碰撞,是没有什么值得我们关注的。但是当德沃金和哈特这样两位个性迥异,却又同样深刻无比的著名法学家,围绕着法哲学领域最艰深,同时也是最重要的话题进行了深入细致的讨论和持续的对话,那么就是一场法律思想的盛会了。如果你错过了这两个人物的这一场论战     

Positivism and Communitarianism: Between Human Rights and Democracy*

Abstract The author deals with theoretical connections between legal positivism and communitarianism. Such connections prove to be relevant not only for a better understanding of these two trends of thought but also in order to throw light on important philosophical issues like human rights and democracy. Deep links are traced and recognized between the so-called positivism “in action,” and especially its ideological thesis, and communitarianism.     

Inclusive Legal Positivism,Legal Interpretation,and Value‐Judgments

In this paper I put forward some arguments in defence of inclusive legal positivism. The general thesis that I defend is that inclusive positivism represents a more fruitful and interesting research program than that proposed by exclusive positivism. I introduce two arguments connected with legal interpretation in favour of my thesis. However, my opinion is that inclusive positivism does not sufficiently succeed in estranging itself from the more traditional legal positivist conceptions. This is the case, for instance, with regard to the value‐freedom principle, which is commonly accepted by inclusive positivist scholars. In contrast with this approach, I try to show, in the concluding section, how a constructivistic version of inclusive positivism could legitimately acknowledge the presence of value‐judgments in the cognitive activities of jurists and legal theorists.     

意外事件与过失之界分——试析穆志祥被控过失致人死亡案

意外事件与过失犯罪二者的法律性质在特定情形下不易界分.穆志祥违规改装车辆,导致被害人意外死亡,被控过失致人死亡.被告人穆志祥的行为不是疏忽大意的过失犯罪所要求的构成要件行为,其行为符合刑法关于过于自信过失的构成要件事实之规定,应认定为过失致人死亡罪.     

Beyond the Janus Face of Zionist Legalism: The Theo‐Political Conditions of the Jewish Law Project*

Abstract. What are the assumptions that underline the Jewish Law Project? To what extent is this project relates to Zionism as a political program and national vision? Does the secular version of this project and the religious one have anything in common? I argue that aside from the ideological lines that guide the Jewish Law Project, within it rests a reductionist and utopianist stance vis‐à‐vis halakhah which are considered to be obvious. I shall attempt to claim that reductionism and utopianism as tacit assumptions, which are neither explicit nor declared by the carriers of the Jewish Law Project, are definitely not trivial. Then, by detrivializing these two assumptions I will suggest viewing the halakhic‐legal relations defined by the Jewish Law Project through these same parameters—the reductionism of the halakhah and its utopian approach.     

抵押与质押之区分及中国物权法的选择

关于抵押与质押之区分 ,大陆法系主要有三种立法例。我国对抵押与质押关系的处理经历了由《民法通则》的“质”“押”合一到《担保法》的“质”“押”分立的变迁。《担保法》中采取多元化的标准区分抵押与质押 ,担保标的不同 ,抵押与质押的区分标准也各不相同 ,这就造成了若干理论上的困惑和一些实践中的不便。为此 ,有必要以民法典的编撰和物权法的制定为契机 ,对抵押与质押的区分进行重新思考和抉择 ,选取占有方式作为二者区分的标准     

评合意和承诺的区分

在存在被害人同意的情况下,犯罪嫌疑人就至少在客观上没有实现不法。主流的观点将同意分为阻却构成要件的合意和作为正当化事由的承诺,但是,合意和承诺并不是一对相对应的概念。它们更像是同意的具备不同功能之类型,且这些类型都具有阻却构成要件的效用。为了简易地区分这两种形式的同意,我们只需要简单地利用这个问题,即：是否犯罪行为可以由作为间接正犯之工具的被害人自己来实施？若得到的肯定的回答,那么该犯罪中就是可以出现被害人承诺的;反之,则是由合意来实现阻却构成要件的功能。     

Non‐Individualism,Rights, and Practical Reason

Abstract. The paper looks at an impasse with respect to the role of rights as reasons for action which afflicts contemporary legal and political debates. Adopting a meta‐ethical approach, it moves on to argue that the impasse arises from a philosophical confusion surrounding the role of rights as normative reasons. In dispelling the confusion, an account of reasons is put forward that attempts to capture their normativity by relating them to a reflexive public practice. Two key outcomes are identified as a result of this explication: first, that normative practices are instances of rule‐following; and second, that agents partaking of normative practices possess absolute value (i.e., acquire the status of persons). In light of this explication, rights acquire the status of the most general reasons that purport to guarantee the content of personhood by specifying and safeguarding conditions which enable agents to participate in public practices of universalisation.     

Beyond the dichotomy: Incarceration dosage and mental health*

The findings from a growing body of research reveal that incarceration is detrimental for both physical and mental health. Incarceration, however, is typically conceptualized and operationalized as a dichotomy; individuals either have, or have not, been incarcerated. Considering that incarceration can range from one day to several years, a dichotomous measure may be overlooking important variations across lengths of exposure. In addition, most inmates are incarcerated more than once. In this study, we help to fill this gap by examining the relationship between incarceration dosage, measured as time served and number of spells, and mental health among a sample of young adults from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997. By using fixed‐effects modeling, we find that the number of spells and the months incarcerated are positively related to mental health symptoms and the likelihood of depression. The association, however, is contingent on whether a respondent is currently or formerly incarcerated. Among current inmates, more time served is expected to improve mental health and the number of spells is unrelated to either outcome.     

Beyond ‘Constitutionalism Beyond the State’

For contemporary constitutional theory, the key challenge posed by globalization undermines the traditional link between constitutionalism and the state: in response to multi‐level governance, theories of constitutionalism beyond the state have been advanced. This focus on levels obscures more fundamental epistemological questions raised by globalization about the nature of constitutionalism itself. Critical analysis of three leading schools of constitutionalism beyond the state – supranational, societal, and new constitutionalism – highlights their shared assumptions with state‐based thought regarding the separation between economics and politics, and the necessarily hegemonic character of constitutionalism. However, globalization intensifies critique of these assumptions, and questions their translation to the transnational context. An alternative scholarly fault line to the state/non‐state cleavage emerges between working within and transcending the politics of constitutional knowledge produced during the nation‐state era. A broader globalization perspective reveals the extent to which such processes of constitutional rethinking are under way through developments in the global South.     

证券做市交易与市场操纵的界分

2017年12月4日,中国证监会针对做市商的市场操纵行为作出了首单行政处罚,但该决定实际仍未明确如何在逻辑上和事实上厘清证券做市交易与市场操纵行为的关系。虽然做市商的流动性供给和定价功能,会导致做市商对证券价格的内心价值判断与其做市行为客观所表达的观点产生不一致,但该种不一致乃是为履行积极义务所致,因此也就不存在操纵的故意,在逻辑上也就不属于市场操纵。是否存在操纵的故意,同时也就构成了在事实上区分证券做市交易和市场操纵的关键。而该项事实认定在新三板市场上应当考虑到低流动性的市场环境、持续双向报价的积极义务、中央交易对手的特别安排、调节库存的客观需要等特殊因素,设置异于通常事实认定标准的特别要求。虽然该种做法存在发生假阴性错误的风险,但从协调假阳性错误及假阴性错误的逻辑和方法来看仍是妥当的选择。     

Bridging the Gap – Non‐state Actors and the Challenges of Regulating New Technology

Designing a system of regulation that will deliver defined policy objectives is not easy. This is particularly so when regulating new technologies, where challenges relating to uncertainty and risk, resource asymmetry, and regulatory disconnection are especially significant. By adopting a pluralistic, decentred approach to regulation that utilizes a range of soft‐law regulatory techniques, non‐state actors can contribute in a variety of ways to these special challenges. However, using non‐state resources in this way (either formally or informally) is not a panacea. Public trust and confidence in the regulation of risk is crucial in ensuring the viability of the control framework. Yet, it is difficult to maintain, not least because regulatory pluralism often envisages state and industry cooperation. Nevertheless, the involvement of non‐state actors, including industry, is important if the regulatory framework is not to hamper technological development or expose the public to unacceptable risks.     

论刑法中不作为与作为的区分

刑法作为规范,本身就是一个包含价值评判的规范体系,作为刑法规范对象的行为,也只能在规范意义上来识别、把握。区分作为和不作为,只能以一定的法律义务为标准。当行为人的行为违反禁止规范时,即为作为,当违反命令规范时即为不作为。在判断是作为还是不作为存疑的场合,应综合行为的外部形态、因果关系等因素,站在规范的立场上进行综合的价值判断。     

Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State

Problem‐solving courts (drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts), unlike traditional courts, attempt to get at the root of the individual and social problems that motivate criminal behavior. Theoretical understandings of problem‐solving courts are mostly Foucauldian; proponents argue that these new institutions employ therapeutic techniques that encourage individuals to self‐engineer in ways that subtly increase state power. The Foucauldian approach captures only some elements of problem‐solving courts and does not fully theorize the revolution in justice that these courts present. Problem‐solving courts, domestic violence courts in particular, orient not just around individual change but also around social change and cultural transformation. Combining the Foucauldian idea of a therapeutic state (as developed by James Nolan) with an understanding of the deliberative democratic mechanisms of larger‐scale structural transformation (found in Habermas and others) leads to a more balanced and empirically open orientation to the actual motivations, goals, and achievements of problem‐solving courts.     

Hard Times for Hard Bans: Fixed‐Term Work and So‐Called Non‐Regression Clauses in the Era of Flexicurity

This paper deals with the issue of non‐regression clauses, which, despite a twenty‐year history, has been addressed by domestic and European case law only recently, and only with regard to the field of flexible employment. This essay argues that the Court of Justice case law on non‐regression clauses (the Mangold and Angelidaki rulings) leads to a weakening of these instruments, rendering them ineffective. This ineffectiveness is due to the controversial idea of Fixed‐Term Work in the era of flexicurity, and to the difficult justiciability of the particular clause in itself, as demonstrated by the most recent Court of Justice's ruling, Sorge. In addition, this essay provides an explanation of the difficult enforcement of non‐regression clauses, in light of the new course of European employment policies.