法哲学与法社会学论丛·二0一一年第一期

章节摘录

版权页：插图：Here is one last objection: it may indeed be the case that the " external evi-dence" rule or the "explicit verbal consent" rule may produce less certainty than their vaguer alternatives; but those who believe that clear and unambiguous rules produce more certainty and predictability than vague standards need not think that any clear rule does so. The claim pertains only to well-crafted rules, not to ill-con- ceived ones; and the "external evidence" rule, or the rule of "explicit verbal con-sent", may be simply ill-conceived. The proper comparison is therefore between well-crafted and strictly-followed clear and unambiguous rules and well-crafted vague standards: it is here that bright-line rules are bound to perform better predictability- wise, A few responses are in order. First, a good many jurists consider the "external evidence" rule and the suggestion of "explicit verbal consent" perfectly well-con- ceived. Indeed these rules are not figments of my imagination: they are the real-life suggestions of those who seek better certainty and predictability in these areas of the law. More fundamentally, the objection assumes that there always is a clear and de- terminate bright-line alternative that would perform better, predictability-wise, than a vague standard. But what could support that assumption Indeed my argument is that in many areas of the law（including contracts or rape）bright-line rules would never produce more predictability than alternative nebulous standards. The problem with the "external evidence" rule or with "explicit verbal consent" is not that they are ill-conceived, but that they seek to reduce the irreducible.

书籍目录

(美]奧弗·拉班　法律确定性的谬误：为什么模糊的法律标准也许更适合资本主义和自由主义?　　
[西班牙]迪亚哥·普尔　自由、价值和实践理性：奥卡姆与圣托马斯之差异的当代相关性　
[巴西]努诺·科尔霍　亚里士多德论衡平和实践智慧：没有止境的正义使命　
(芬]汉讷·伊索拉一米提伦　权衡与正当性：对法律原则权衡的反思
[斯洛文尼亚]马里扬·帕夫克比克　[奧]弗里德里希·拉赫梅尔论比例原则　
[意]阿尔贝特·维斯帕兹阿尼　迈向一种对法律隐喻的诠释学路径
[土]埃伊莱姆·尤米特·艾迪甘　衡平法在土耳其法司法裁量中的角色及土耳其法官的衡平法观念
张嘉尹　法律的教义知识和跨学科研究：一个方法论的反思　
黄维幸　法律方法论和科学哲学的契合：融合事实和法律　
[巴西]霍奥·查维斯　米歇尔·福柯的治理概念：对法律的最终否定
本辑作者名录　
引证体例　

作者简介

《法哲学与法社会学论丛(2011年第1期•总第16期)》为法哲学与法社会学专业性出版物。自二〇〇六年起，论丛每年两期，兼采中、英、德三种文字。我们诚挚地期待海内外学者惠赐稿件。稿件无体裁和字数限制。来稿请采用电子文本，并附文字打印本。电子文本请寄至，文字打印本请寄：102249北京市昌平区中国政法大学法学院法理学研究所范立波收。传真：010-82901309。所有来稿我们会用电子邮件及时通知作者，来稿一经刊用即敬奉稿酬及样书。

图书封面

---

 法哲学与法社会学论丛·二0一一年第一期下载

---