读书生活 · READING

《法律和社会科学》第四卷编辑手记

《法律和社会科学》第四卷

做专号是我们办LASS一直以来的想法。2006年是想做“法律与人类学”专号,但没有做,最后是以《法律与人类学:中国读本》(北京大学出版社2008年版)的形式出版。而这一卷是没想要做,但却做成了“法律与经济学”专号

值得庆幸。

由于廖志敏博士的居间努力,LASS第四卷发表了张五常先生的“张五常论新劳动法”。这篇文章是张五常在新浪博客上系列短文的集合。他认为《劳动合同法》没有能够尊重市场合约的自由选择,增加交易成本,阻碍地区竞争;同时,由于劳动市场与产品市场同属一个市场,只是合约安排有别。因此,《劳动合同法》是全面地干预市场的一种重要合约,牵一发而动全身,整个市场会受到严重的损害。张五常也批评了《劳动合同法》的立法者缺乏对有效信息的认知和判断。这一点提示,想来是值得现代和未来参与立法的法律人反省的。一如既往,本文的观点并不代表本刊的立场,但实践是检验真知的标准,让我们拭目以待。

李国庆的论文 “中国律师产业实证研究——从进入壁垒切入”,也是为我们所特别推荐。这篇论文是LASS创刊以来首次发表博士论文全文,但我们更看重作者分析问题的思路。作为国内少见的运用产业组织经济学原理来研究法律问题的青年学人,他的基本出发点是将中国律师业当作经济现象进行分析。他预言中国法律服务市场的发展趋势将是强者恒强,弱者愈弱。同时也批评律师业进入壁垒政策,虽然有利于律师业“做大”,但却不一定有利于“做强”。作者还分析了法律服务市场变化对法学教育和法官职业的影响,这也值得读者批评和判断。

唐应茂和盛柳刚的论文“中国司法执行难的计量分析”是对“民商事执行程序中的‘双高现象 ’”(LASS第一卷)一文研究的深化。深化主要表现在,之前他们在分析财政部的规定出台前后对当事人执行行为的影响时,虽然发现了支持非市场化理论的证据,但是并没有控制其他因素的影响。而此次研究则采用对数比率模型(Logit模型)对申请执行决定进行回归分析,将影响申请执行决定的各类因素一同考虑,以此检验市场化理论和非市场化理论。相较国内法学界喜好“高谈阔论”、“蜻蜓点水”的学风而言,他们对针对一个具体问题进行“深钻”的态度,显得相当可贵。

“关于海瑞定理I”一文是对“海瑞定理的经济学解释”(《中国社会科学》2006年第6期)的再阐释。苏力在这篇文章中展示了“海瑞定理 I”的社会政治意义、司法的经济分配功能,以及发生的社会制度条件。他认为如何使有限的国家正式纠纷解决机制最有效地履行其治理职能,这是任何一个诚实、务实的法律人/政治家一定会遇到并必须认真关注的理论问题和实践问题。答案最终应当也必定会由任何社会中所有人的实际行为表达的公共选择来决定,不能只是由法学家思考和研究来决定。这也再一次强化了他的一贯立场:一个民族的生活创造她的法治,法学家只是创造法治的理论。

New book: Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide, by Cass R. Sunstein

Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and DivideGoing to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide by Cass R. Sunstein, Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN-10: 0195378016. ISBN-13: 9780195378016.

购买本书@亚马逊

读者可以对比阅读他之前主题相近的一本书:Republic.com 2.0 (2007)。该书第一版有中译本《网络共和国》

Review

“Cass Sunstein has written Going to Extremes for those confounded by a country that remains stubbornly polarized. In clear, precise language, he explains that extremism is a consequence of the company we keep. He challenges not only what we think, but how we come to our beliefs, and he demonstrates that diversity of thought is the one ingredient necessary for both a healthy state and a working democracy.” –Bill Bishop, author of The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded American is Tearing Us Apart

“A path-breaking exploration of the perils and possibilities created by polarization among the like-minded.”–Kathleen Hall Jamieson, co-author of unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation and Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment

“Sunstein’s book poses a powerful challenge to anyone concerned with the future of our democracy. He reveals the dark side to our cherished freedoms of thought, expression and participation. New strategies and new designs are required to make political discussion the constructive force our ideals prescribe. His book initiates an urgent dialogue which any thoughtful citizen should be interested in.” –James S. Fishkin, author of the forthcoming When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation

“Harvard law professor Sunstein (Radicals in Robes) explores the nature of group decision making, largely expounding on his contention that homogenous groups of like-minded people tend to adopt more extreme positions than groups with a diversity of opinions…. As President Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein’s ideas…[have] attained a level of national importance.”–Publishers Weekly

Content

Why do people become extremists? What makes people become so dismissive of opposing views? Why is political and cultural polarization so pervasive in America? Why do groups of teenagers, investors, and corporations take unnecessary risks? What leads groups to engage in such destructive acts as terrorism and ethic cleansing?

In Going to Extremes, renowned legal scholar and best-selling author Cass Sunstein offers startling insights into why and when people gravitate toward extremism. Sunstein marshals an abundance of evidence that shows that when like-minded people talk to one another, they tend to become more extreme in their views than they were before. This point applies to such diverse groups as religious organizations, corporate boards, investment clubs, and White House officials. Sunstein introduces original research to show that when liberals are brought together to debate affirmative action, they end up more supportive of it, while conservatives brought together to discuss same-sex unions become skeptical about same-sex unions. In courtrooms, radio stations, and chatrooms, enclaves of like-minded people are breeding ground for extreme movements.

《清华法治论衡》第十一辑:走向民主的时代

《清华法治论衡》第十一辑修罗按语:《清华法治论衡》第11辑(走向民主的时代专号)终于出版了,这是《论衡》第二次改版之后的第一个专号,在当下时局十分微妙的时候出版这样一个敏感话题的专号,似乎有些忌讳,书稿几经曲折,甚至上达总署审阅,总算是尘埃落定,自然,除了出版社和编辑部的努力,功劳自然少不了中央编译局何增科所长等诸君,没有他们的支持,这辑《论衡》或许会面临其他困难。《论衡》至此已然9年11辑,也进入了CSSCI来源集刊的行列。下一辑《社会理论之法与中国语境》(暂定名)也已经截稿编辑,不日即将交付出版社,在此向所有关心《论衡》的新老朋友表示衷心感谢,也期望大家继续支持。

高鸿钧、何增科(特邀)主编:《清华法治论衡》,第十一辑(走向民主的时代),清华大学出版社,2009。

内容简介

本书为“走向民主的时代”专号,旨在研究当下中国民主理论与实践的重大前沿问题,并对其主要领域和层面进行反思、总结、梳理与探索,既有理论评析,又有经验调查,既涉及西方文本,又关注中国语境。本书主要围绕民主与政治改革,民主与自由选举,民主与风险社会,协商民主及其合法性等问题展开。作者既有法学与政治学权威学者,又有学界中坚新锐。诸君平实言理,从容著文,注重理论而关切实际,文章具有很强的可读性。

本书适合法学、政治学等领域的研究者及相关专业学生阅读,对政府官员和关心民主与政治体制改革的社会各界人士,亦有重要价值。

本刊为CSSCI来源集刊
清华大学法学院主办
法律与社会发展研究中心编辑

波斯纳新书《资本主义的失败》及该书博客

A Failure of CapitalismA Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of ’08 and the Descent into Depression, by Richard A. Posner. Harvard University Press 2009. ISBN-10: 0674035143; ISBN-13: 9780674035140

中译本:《资本主义的失败:〇八危机与经济萧条的降临》

From the Publisher

The financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 is the most alarming of our lifetime because of the warp-speed at which it is occurring. How could it have happened, especially after all that we’ve learned from the Great Depression? Why wasn’t it anticipated so that remedial steps could be taken to avoid or mitigate it? What can be done to reverse a slide into a full-blown depression? Why have the responses to date of the government and the economics profession been so lackluster? Richard Posner presents a concise and non-technical examination of this mother of all financial disasters and of the, as yet, stumbling efforts to cope with it. No previous acquaintance on the part of the reader with macroeconomics or the theory of finance is presupposed. This is a book for intelligent generalists that will interest specialists as well.

Among the facts and causes Posner identifies are: excess savings flowing in from Asia and the reckless lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve Board; the relation between executive compensation, short-term profit goals, and risky lending; the housing bubble fuelled by low interest rates, aggressive mortgage marketing, and loose regulations; the low savings rate of American people; and the highly leveraged balance sheets of large financial institutions.

Posner analyzes the two basic remedial approaches to the crisis, which correspond to the two theories of the cause of the Great Depression: the monetarist—that the Federal Reserve Board allowed the money supply to shrink, thus failing to prevent a disastrous deflation—and the Keynesian—that the depression was the product of a credit binge in the 1920’s, a stock-market crash, and the ensuing downward spiral in economic activity. Posner concludes that the pendulum swung too far and that our financial markets need to be more heavily regulated.

杨国斌:The Power of the Internet in China

The Power of the Internet in ChinaThe Power of the Internet in China: Citizen Activism Online by Guobin Yang, Columbia University Press, June 2009

Since the mid-1990s, the Internet has revolutionized popular expression in China, enabling users to organize, protest, and influence public opinion in unprecedented ways. Despite efforts to control these activities, online activism has been an agent of immense social change, allowing common citizens to disseminate content and openly challenge the authority of political and economic elites.

Guobin Yang’s pioneering study follows the rise of this dynamic protest and the forces that keep it relevant and unique. Online activism encompasses an innovative range of rituals, genres, and styles, and state efforts to constrain it have only led to more creative acts of subversion. Internet businesses have encouraged these contentious activities, generating an unusual synergy between capitalism and civil organizations that sponsor critique. Based on ten years of meticulous research and grounded in theories of social movements and the public sphere, Yang’s study emphasizes the mutual shaping of technology and society and highlights the important role of a transnational diaspora in the making of a Chinese Internet culture. In conclusion, Yang argues that online activism reflects important structural changes in contemporary China and points to a new era of informational politics.

Guobin Yang is an associate professor in the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Cultures at Barnard College, Columbia University. He is coeditor, with Ching Kwan Lee, of Re-envisioning the Chinese Revolution: The Politics and Poetics of Collective Memories in Reform China.

“A boundary-breaking book. . . . A snap review of some of the hottest issues in front of the Chinese public today.” — Daniel Little, Understanding Society

“Mr. Yang’s work is essential reading.” — Rebecca MacKinnon, Far Eastern Economic Review

“This work represents a major advancement in scholarly research. . . unquestionably, it should be on reading lists for courses related to social and political development in China. . . it is highly recommended to all. ” — Jonathan Sullivan, The China Quarterly

“Of interest to sociologists and students of mass communications . . . Recommended.” — Choice

“Essential reading for all those seeking a more nuanced account of the power of the internet in China than that provided by international media and human rights organizations.” — Colin Hawes, The China Journal

“Yang develops a lens that centers on concrete issues and situations that are both empirical-practical and conceptual-theoretical.” — Peter Marolt, International Journal of Communication

“The Power of the Internet in China by Yang Guobin is destined to be classic and obligatory reading for anyone interested in understanding the role of the internet in people’s struggle for freedom, justice, and democracy in China.” — Lokman Tsui, China Information

“The Power of the Internet in China offers us not only a rich study of Chinese

online activism but also raises significant questions about China’s civil society.” — Ming-Cheng Miriam Lo, Contemporary Sociology

“An attentive and richly detailed study of the Chinese Internet—certainly the best book I’ve read on the subject. Guobin Yang does a very fine job of summarizing new developments and vividly describing a variety of online communities.” — Patricia M. Thornton, University of Oxford

“In today’s China, who benefits more from the power of the Internet: citizen activists or state authorities? Guobin Yang comes down decisively on the side of the citizenry, seeing online activism as the revival of a Chinese revolutionary spirit that is setting the stage for the long-awaited democratic breakthrough. Although the conclusion of this richly documented study is certainly controversial, the careful research and clear reasoning are incontrovertible. Whether or not Yang’s optimistic prognosis proves correct, his excellent scholarship and engaging style make for an impressive contribution to a timely debate.” — Elizabeth J. Perry, Henry Rosovsky Professor of Government, Harvard University

“Much has been written about the role the Internet has played in political campaigns and grassroots politics in America, but the real transformative power of the Internet can be seen in places like China and Iran, where authoritarian governments are faced with the irreversible power of individuals coming together online. This book gives an in-depth look at the explosion of Internet use in China and the dramatic political and cultural changes it has enabled. The ultimate instrument of individual empowerment is remaking one of the most controlling societies on earth. What Chinese leadership will be forced to recognize is that this democratic surge must be accommodated. Failure to do so will either stop economic development or result in the current regime’s loss of power.” — Governor Howard Dean

“Transformations in China and transformations of communication are two of the great stories of the contemporary era. They come together in Guobin Yang’s outstanding study of online activism in the People’s Republic. The Internet expands activists’ sense of themselves as participants in global movements, and it is used in distinctively Chinese ways. It circulates repertoires of collective action and occasions new forms of action. In this well-researched and well-written book, Yang gives the best account available of this experimentation, innovation, and social change.” — Craig Calhoun, president, Social Science Research Council, and University Professor of the Social Sciences, New York University

刘皓明:《荷尔德林后期诗歌》评注卷后记

刘皓明:《荷尔德林后期诗歌》文本卷和评注卷。上海:华东师范大学出版社,2009。

《荷尔德林后期诗歌》文本的翻译以及与之相伴的评注卷的写作,始于2005年秋。这个研究项目是我长期以来对德意志观念论、德英浪漫派诗歌、乃至西洋古典诗歌和哲学研究的小结。关于文本部分的选录标准和体例安排,我已在文本卷的“凡例”和“前言”里做了交代,这里仅就评注卷做些解释。

荷尔德林后期诗歌作为同文本卷相辅相成的研究著作,《荷尔德林后期诗歌》评注卷采用了对文本卷所包括的诗歌章句的注疏与通解相结合的方法,并用若干更全面的长篇论文,把对诗歌章句的解读贯穿起来,并把它们放置于更大的思想史背景中,以期形成一种从语文学到诗学、再到哲学和神学的过渡。评注卷中对章句的注疏和通解,是建立在我所能看到的迄今为止出版的几乎所有荷尔德林批评成就之上的。故这一部分有“集解”的意味,只是在体例上,为了限制已经很大的篇幅,不严格采纳我国古典文学注疏中“集解”的体例,而是在各篇后的“文献”部分指出和承认前人的研究成果。概括地说,前人和当代学者的研究成果,凡涉及基本事实的,例如指出没有争议的典故或指涉来源,历史背景,生平资料等,本书一般不会指名道姓地提到首先指出这些事实的学者;对于已为学界普遍接受的对诗人作品的基本解释,也不提最初发表这种解释的学者。只有在解释有争议或者我认为观点有特殊的见地或者观点可备一说、但不完全无疑的时候,才会提到诠释或观点的作者。我自己的见解,无论是辨认具体的典故出处,还是更一般的解读,一般均融入全书各部分中,并不一一标明。概括说来,除了在文本勘读方面有所发明外,在纯粹的历史语文学研究方面,我个人的贡献较多较集中的地方,除了所有涉及汉语语境与资源的那些方面之外,主要在于对诗人作品与莱辛、厄廷格尔、雅各比、赫尔德、克洛普施托克、席勒、黑格尔、谢林、施莱耶尔马赫和弗·施莱格尔等同代作家作品之间呼应的识别和阐发,其次也在于彰显、发明和诠释那些为批评家们忽略的圣经和希腊古典指涉。但是作为自成一体的著作,全书的诠释角度、理论构架和对材料的择汰取舍,当然完全是我个人的。此外,为了创造一个多维的展示空间,我还特地在本书中加入了音乐成分。用有关的德国古典音乐来辅助阐释本书的内容,完全是我个人的尝试,是我长期涉猎德国古典音乐的一个结果。在注疏部分里,特别应该说明的是,书中个别地方援引了中国古典著作,这样做有些时候是为了标明《后期诗歌》翻译所利用的汉语语言资源,有些时候是因为涉及地理、历史或名物的考证,另一些时候是为了对同中国自己传统中某些概念似乎相近的西方概念进行辨证,然而,没有任何时候是为了要证明中西传统之间的所谓“契合”,或是为了要“贯通”中西。此外,书中对西方经典的引用,除圣经外,绝大多数情况下没有利用现存中译本。这是因为许多引文有特定的语义与其他侧重点,不一定总能在现存的译文中得到充分反映。而要将现存译本拿来一一比较评论,则难免会令全书显得芜杂,也会偏离本书的主题。

苏力主编:《法律和社会科学》第四卷

《法律和社会科学》第四卷
《法律和社会科学》(Law and Social Sciences)第四卷,苏力主编,法律出版社2009年,定价33元。

购买本书:当当网卓越网

法律与经济学专号

张五常论新劳动法 / 张五常
中国律师产业实证研究——从进入壁垒切入 / 李国庆
中国司法执行难的计量分析 / 唐应茂 盛柳刚
关于海瑞定理Ι / 苏力
刑事诉讼中计件考核 / 朱桐辉

编辑手记
《法律和社会科学》引征体例

高峰枫:赫胥黎与《圣经》

  自从严复编译出《天演论》,赫胥黎(Thomas Henry Huxley,一八二五 —— 一八九五)这个名字,在中国便尽人皆知。《天演论》起首一句“赫胥黎独处于一室之中,在英伦之南,背山而面野。槛外诸境,历历如在几下”,便使这位进化论斗士霍地跻身周秦诸子的行列了。赫胥黎于一八九五年谢世,五年之后,他的儿子列奥纳多·赫胥黎编辑整理了一部《赫胥黎生平与书信》(Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley),分上下两卷于一九〇〇年在伦敦出版。这部千余页的大书详细记录了赫胥黎一生各阶段的大事,特别是刊出了他与亲友的大批通信,成为研究赫胥黎生平和思想的必读书。翻阅这部书时,首先让我感到惊奇的,是赫胥黎平日在与亲朋友好的通信中,纯熟地运用了不少《圣经》典故,而且用典极为贴切。我们所熟悉的那个赫胥黎,是进化论的斗士、宗教的大敌。在他的晚年,对于基督教的批评异常严厉。但是,《圣经》之于他,或许还有更加复杂的意义。因此,确有必要勾勒一下赫胥黎对于《圣经》的态度。

  赫胥黎在晚年撰写过一篇简短的《自述》,提到自己年幼时,对所在教区的牧师崇拜得五体投地。某周日,全家赴教堂作礼拜,只有年幼的赫胥黎留守家中。没想到他竟然在厨房里另辟一座讲坛,向家中女佣慷慨激昂地布起道来。他成年后那种好为人师、喜爱传道授业的秉性始见于此。像其他维多利亚时代的英国人一样,赫胥黎熟谙《圣经》,不少段落烂熟于胸,在其著作和书信中随心所欲地频频运用《圣经》典故。下面谨举三个例子,以见他对《圣经》的熟稔和喜爱。一八四五年,赫胥黎从医学院毕业,经人举荐,在海军部谋到助理医师的职位,二十一岁便随“响尾蛇号”科学考察船远赴大洋洲。在随后四年时间里,他写下大量家信。考察船出发不久,赫胥黎就给他的大姐写信报平安,信中自比《旧约》先知书中的约拿(Jonah)。约拿被人抛入海中,为大鱼吞噬,在鱼腹中栖身三日三夜(《约拿书》1 :17)。赫胥黎向家人诉苦,说自己居住的船舱空间狭小,十分逼仄,论到住宿条件,鱼腹中的约拿还要胜我一筹。四年远航结束后,赫胥黎回到伦敦,一心想投入科学研究。但他很快发现,献身学术根本无法糊口。他在给大姐的信中抱怨道:“靠科学研究来谋生实在是一个笑话……一位科学家可以赢得声誉,却无法赚来面包。”他接下来又说:“如今的科学家就如以扫(Esau)一般,为了一碗汤不得不出卖自己长子的名分。”以扫的典故出自《创世记》第二十五章,说的是亚伯拉罕的儿子以撒有一对双胞胎儿子,长子以扫善打猎,次子雅各为人安静。一日,以扫又累又饿,恳求弟弟将红豆汤给自己充饥。雅各遂趁机迫使兄长将长子的名分卖给自己。这一时期,赫胥黎确曾考虑过放弃科学研究,在另一封信中他就抱怨说,银行职员的工资都要比大学教授优厚。直到晚年写《自述》,赫胥黎仍不忘拿《圣经》故事来打趣。他回忆自己当初在“响尾蛇号”上,将远航期间所作的科学发现写成文章,投寄给英国博物学协会的刊物,但稿件频频遭拒。赫胥黎就将自己被拒的稿子比做挪亚在方舟中放出的乌鸦。挪亚放乌鸦是为了测试洪水是否消退。但洪水漫漫,乌鸦无处栖身,只得返回方舟,正仿佛赫胥黎屡遭退稿的命运。等他所寄一篇长文被皇家协会采用后,赫胥黎打趣说“这就是我那只鸽子”。这是指洪水消退之后,挪亚最后放出鸽子,鸽子见到陆地,不复飞还,而赫胥黎的文章这一次也真正找到了“栖身之所”。赫胥黎对《圣经》典故信手拈来,皆有妙趣,可见《圣经》对他影响之深。

用开阔的眼光来理解法官——李晟采访苏力

李晟:《法官如何思考》较之波斯纳此前对于司法制度的研究,最主要的推进在于什么方面?尤其是与《超越法律》相比较?

苏力:波斯纳之前可以说有一本半著作是本书的先声。一本是《[美国]联邦法院》,讨论美国联邦司法制度以及制度改革如何影响法官的行为,而法官行为的改变又如何进一步影响了联邦司法制度。这种制度与人的互动在本书中继续着。另一本就是你提到的《超越法律》,主要是第一和第二编。第一编分析了美国法律职业界,作为一个追求自我利益最大化的职业卡特尔,包括律师和法官,以及这个职业中产生的职业意识形态,即传统法学话语。第二编讨论了宪法理论,波斯纳认为司法并不是按照宪法理论来进行的。这两个主题在本书中都继续着。

《法官如何思考》这本书的推进在我看来,主要是更为有效的整合和吸纳了其他有关司法研究的理论学派和研究成果。最突出的是态度学派,态度学派的经验研究发现并断定,司法判决就是政治甚至政党意识形态在起作用,阅历、家庭和社会背景、乃至个人气质、性格也起作用,尤其是在美国最高法院。这种政治的司法理论颇有影响,在经验上颇有说服力。但这种理论会很糟糕,因为它把司法完全政治化了。波斯纳吸纳了态度学派的研究发现,但主要借助了他的制度经济学的研究思路,吸纳了更多理论流派,对法官的思考和行为做出了更有说服力的社会科学的解说。所谓社会科学的解释,我指的是非政治意识形态的解释,尽管并不完全排除政治意识形态和其他因素。一般看来,本书是对法条主义的一个反驳,即司法完全是法律、先例在起作用;但我认为更是对“态度理论唯一”的一个反驳和批评。

李晟:似乎与波斯纳的其他著作的谋篇布局风格不太一致,《法官如何思考》显得体系化更为完整和紧凑,对此前的关于司法行为的主流理论概括并逐一批评之后,波斯纳建立起了一个较为系统化的司法理论框架。在这个新的理论框架中,最犀利的地方是什么?

苏力:基本是一致的。波斯纳的著作的组织构成有几类;有以问题或现象为中心,有以理论为中心的,也有以领域为中心的。这我在其他地方提到过的。这本书可以说是以问题为中心的。

中国人比较习惯于以领域为中心,因此可能对波斯纳的某些些著作感到有些陌生或别扭。其实平心静气的阅读,不关心所谓的“严谨”,只关心书中讲的道理,我觉得其实是差不多的。

所谓犀利,也必须看阅读的语境和阅读者。不同的人阅读肯定感受到的犀利或启发是不一样的。前面讲了,波斯纳在本书中可以说是反对有关司法的两大研究流派,态度理论和法条主义。前者可以说是对公众的,公众认为司法就是政治,后者是对大部分职业法律人的,认为司法就是法条主义。波斯纳的分析论证表明两者都有,但都很不完整。因此,态度学派人士和法条主义者会感到不同的犀利。而且这种犀利不是来自论断,而是来自材料和对材料的分析。

因此,中国法律和法学界感到的犀利也会不同于美国读者。

哈佛法学新刊 Journal of Legal Analysis 免费阅读

Harvard Law School

Harvard University Press Announces First Open Access Journal

In partnership with the John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business at Harvard Law School, Harvard University Press will launch the Journal of Legal Analysis, its first foray into online, Open Access publishing, at noon on Tuesday, February 3, 2009. “Harvard University Press’s mission has always been the dissemination of first-rate scholarship to the widest possible audience; we are thrilled that technology has enabled us to further that mission in ways never imagined when the Press was founded in 1913,” says Press director Bill Sisler. Robert Darnton, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the Harvard University Library, elaborates: “Possibilities opened up by the internet are transforming the whole landscape of publishing, especially in the realm of academic journals. By taking this step, Harvard University Press has signaled its determination to participate in the transformation and to do so in a way that will promote the diffusion of first-rate scholarship.”

The Journal of Legal Analysis (JLA) aspires to publish the best legal scholarship from all disciplinary perspectives and in all styles, whether verbal, formal, or empirical. The JLA is faculty edited. All articles are subject to peer review. JLA articles are free on the web and will be posted on the JLA website as soon as they are ready for publication. Published articles will be gathered into bound volumes once a year and made available for purchase.

Harvard University Press published academic journals in the past but ceased doing so about three decades ago because journal publishing no longer fit in with the overall strategy at that time. The development of an online journal publishing program has long been a goal of HUP Editor-in-Chief, Michael Fisher, who explored a variety of possible co-publishing ventures with other departments at the University.

When, in the summer of 2007, Steven Shavell, Director of the John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, and Mark Ramseyer, Mitsubishi Professor of Japanese Legal Studies, approached Senior Acquisitions Editor in the Social Sciences at HUP, Mike Aronson, with the idea of starting a journal, Aronson and Fisher were thrilled. “With the emergence of online journal publishing and Open Access, the cost of entry into journal publishing is lower than it’s ever been,” says Fisher. “With an online OA journal a publisher does not have to spend start-up money recruiting subscribers, does not need a subscription-fulfillment operation, does not even have to print the journal. The fact that we can work with the Law School to jointly further the University’s scholarly mission while spending less in the current economic climate is very, very exciting for us.”

For Ramseyer, the JLA represents a landmark in law journal publishing, one that fills a gap left by the student-edited law reviews. “Until JLA, there has not been a faculty-edited, peer-reviewed journal that covered the whole span of the legal academy. There have been faculty-edited journals for subfields, but not for the entire discipline. With the JLA, we are trying to create a faculty-edited journal that will be the flagship journal for the law school faculty as a whole.”

Stuart Shieber, Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science and current Faculty Director of the Office for Scholarly Communication, was happy to congratulate the Press on finally achieving its goal: “Harvard University Press’s reentry into journal publishing through the Journal of Legal Analysis represents an exciting development in the burgeoning world of Open Access journal publishing. HUP’s efforts are to be applauded for both their quality and their accessibility.”

According to Dan Lee, Director of Digital Content Development at HUP, “the JLA is the first of many Digital Publishing initiatives to come from HUP. A successful implementation of this publishing model should translate into similar ventures with other departments and institutions—whether new journals, online monographs, or hybrid projects incorporating the best of new scholarship with cutting edge web applications. It’s important that HUP bring its editorial, production, and marketing expertise to bear by working together with the University to help set new precedents in the creation and dissemination of scholarly publications in the digital world.”

For more information, please visit the JLA at http://jla.hup.harvard.edu.

Source link

赵鼎新:民主的限制

民主四讲》,王绍光著,三联书店2008年9月第一版,256页,21.00元。

  就我个人来说,如果这个世界中存在一个没有“修饰词”的民主国家,并且如果我有选择的话,我是绝对不会去那个国家生活的。

  近三十年来,中国发表的有关民主的著述不少,但其中绝大多数都属于“处方”式的工作。这些著述的作者大多对西方民主的具体运作机制及存在条件不甚了了,许多人也没有足够丰富的西方生活经历,但都把西方在二十世纪的强盛和发展看作是民主的成果,并把中国社会在不同时期存在的各种问题看作缺乏民主的表现。“只有民主才能实现中国的经济发展”、“只有民主才能消除官员腐败”、“只有民主才能解决社会收入不平等”、“只有民主才能解决环境污染问题”、“ 只有民主才能解决公共卫生和食品危机”,如此等等,不一而足。在这种思维方式下,“民主是个好东西”似乎成了一个不容争辩的铁理。

  王绍光先生的《民主四讲》与以往那些著作有很大的不同。《民主四讲》中虽然也有不少“处方”,但其核心则是描述和分析。《民主四讲》的第一章讲述希腊古典民主的起源与消亡,柏拉图、亚里士多德以降的古典哲人和大量近代哲人对民主政体的厌恶,美国建国初期的政治家对民主政体的恐慌,以及代议制民主在西方的形成和发展。第二章综述西方社会科学家关于代议制民主得以存在的条件的核心文献及其论点。第三章围绕代议制民主的选举制度和政党制度讲解其运作机制及其在发展中所形成的种种弊端。第四章则对代议制民主的实效进行评价,对代议制民主的得失进行反思和批判,并针对各种问题提出自己的看法。《民主四讲》展现了王绍光深厚的西学造诣及他对西方代议制民主的深入了解,书中多处到位的点评也凸显了作者的多年积累和思考。《民主四讲》为中国读书阶层提供了一部了解西方民主的高质量入门教材,它走出了八十年代来盛行的“民主是个好东西”式的思维方式,表明了中国知识分子正在走出急功近利的启蒙而趋于成熟,这对今后中国政治的良性发展是一件好事情。我为王绍光《民主四讲》的出版叫好。  

民主四讲  《民主四讲》在学术上质量上乘,但书中的一些观点我却不尽赞同。为了深化对于民主和民主转型的认识,笔者在此抛砖引玉,提出以下分析供参考。

新书讯:胡鞍钢《毛泽东与文革》

香港大风出版社,2008年。这是胡鞍钢继《中国政治经济史论(1949-1976)》后的第二部党史研究。

以下转自大风出版社

【內容簡介】

毛泽东与文革「文化大革命」十年是黨、國家和人民遭到建國以來最嚴重的挫折和損失的十年,是毛澤東晚年的歷史悲劇。「文化大革命」成為鄧小平發動改革開放的直接動因,也是中國能夠在1978年之後走向「天下大治」,保持政治穩定和社會穩定的根本原因。
本書以史實為基礎,以事件為線索,以分析為手段,以評論為精華,「邊讀邊議」,「邊敘邊評」,以便來挖掘歷史悲劇及其背後歷史成因,將歷史教訓轉化成歷史財富,使今人和後人記住這段刻骨銘心的歷史,「以史為鑒」。
☆ 文革為什麼會在中國發生?並持續十年之久?
☆ 文革每一階段政治鬥爭的主線、代表人物、標誌性的政治事件。
☆ 文革怎樣結束?失敗的原因。
☆ 如何評價文革?毛澤東的自我評價與歷史評價有何不同?

【本書特色】

☆ 文革史例來受到廣泛關注。雖然出版了各種回憶錄和專案分析,但整體貫穿起來的宏觀分析,只有嚴家其、高皋出過一本。
☆ 胡鞍鋼一直是大陸決策高級智囊,得以接觸大量文件和內部資料。作者理論素養深厚,參與改革政策制定,指揮團隊利用和挖掘大量資料,無論從認識的深度還是資料的佔有上,這本書都是迄今為止最權威的一本。
☆ 本書以史實為基礎,以事件為線索,以分析為手段,以評論為精華,「邊讀邊議」,「邊敘邊評」,行雲流水,可讀性極強。

胡鞍鋼
清華大學國情研究中心主任,清華大學公共管理學院教授、博士生導師。2001年獲孫冶方經濟科學論文獎。
已正式出版中國國情與發展研究系列中文專著14部。被日本《朝日新聞》譽為「把中國經濟、政治、社會進行綜合分析的,具有影響力的『國情研究』專家」。

理查德·波斯纳:《法官如何思考》

理查德·波斯纳法官的《法官如何思考》(How Judges Think)一书是今年四月哈佛大学出版社出版的,已经被苏力老师以迅雷不及掩耳盗铃之势译成中文,中译本于2009年1月由北京大学出版社出版(ISBN:9787301147535,定价39元)。敬请留意。@豆瓣

先睹为快!——阅读“引论”

内容简介:

本书为美国著名法官、学者理查德·波斯纳的最新专著,也有美国学者称其为波斯纳最重要的著作。在本书中,波斯纳基于多学科领域的研究,并结合他本人长达27年担任美国联邦上诉法院法官的司法经验,分析了种种司法行为和法官职任考量,这一分析迥异于以往对司法以及法官的研究,其关注的是与法官行为紧密联系的认知和情感的社会和制度塑造。波斯纳的分析表明,尽管大多数(常规)司法决定似乎都是法条主义驱动的,但法官绝不是“自动售货机”,只是机械地适用已有规则或按既定法理推理模式决策的法条主义者,相反,其政治偏好或法律以外的其他个人性因素,例如,法官个人特点以及生平阅历和职业经验,会塑造他的司法前见,进而直接影响其对案件的判断。

波斯纳关于法官行为的分析是具有普适性的,其提出的问题和分析建议在中国语境中也同样适用:法官是如何行为的,为什么如此行为、行为的后果可能为何,以及哪些智识工具最适合分析这些问题。

高峰枫:通识教育读本之“欠通”

古典诗文绎读《古典诗文绎读·西学卷·古代编》(上)、(下),刘小枫选编,李世祥、邱立波等译,华夏出版社,2008年8月第一版,495页、493页,89.00元。

  华夏出版社近年来翻译出版了大量书刊,仿佛空投集束炸弹一样,密集轰炸了中国的西方古典学研究领域。最近掷出的是一枚重磅炸弹——厚厚两卷、篇幅接近千页的《古典诗文绎读·西学卷·古代编》(以下简称《绎读》)。该书上卷涵盖了亚里士多德之前共十一位古希腊经典作家,既有诗人和戏剧家(荷马、赫西俄德、三大悲剧作家等),也有史家和哲学家(如希罗多德、修希底德、柏拉图等)。下卷选择的作家范围更广,有西塞罗、恺撒、维吉尔这些古罗马诗文作者,有早期基督教神学家如奥古斯丁,还包括中世纪犹太哲人迈蒙尼德以及三部古代文献集(希伯来圣经、新约福音书、《一千零一夜》)。每位作家或文献集均配以两三篇“绎读”文章,这些文章除少数几篇出自中国学者之手,其余皆译自西方(主要是美国)古典学者的著述。

  这部以译文为主体的读本有一个与众不同之处。编者并非要出版一部研究资料汇编,而是准备为青年学子提供一部研读西方古籍的“指南” 或者“导读”。在“弁言”中,编者雄心勃勃地写道:“《古典诗文绎读》打破现代化的学科分割,以可读性强的原典绎读开学养正,不仅为人文科学的本科生也为社会科学各专业本科生提供通识教育基础读本,亦可供理工农医学生休闲。”(上卷第2页)大哉斯言!但是大学本科生在读过《绎读》之后,果真能受到西方古典学的启蒙、果真能窥西学的门径吗?我看未必。《绎读》在很多方面都未达“通识教育基础读本”的要求,最显著的缺陷有三方面:一曰门户之见太深,二曰选编尺度不明,三曰学术规范不讲。

13 of 18
91011121314151617