法哲學(xué)與法社會(huì)學(xué)論叢·二0一一年第一期

內(nèi)容概要

　  《法哲學(xué)與法社會(huì)學(xué)論叢·2011年第1期（總第十六期）》這本書內(nèi)容包括：法律確定性的謬誤：為什么模糊的法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也許更適合資本主義和自由主義；自由、價(jià)值和實(shí)踐理性：奧卡姆與圣托馬斯之差異的當(dāng)代相關(guān)性等。 

書籍目錄

(美]奧弗·拉班　法律確定性的謬誤：為什么模糊的法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也許更適合資本主義和自由主義?　　
[西班牙]迪亞哥·普爾　自由、價(jià)值和實(shí)踐理性：奧卡姆與圣托馬斯之差異的當(dāng)代相關(guān)性　
[巴西]努諾·科爾霍　亞里士多德論衡平和實(shí)踐智慧：沒有止境的正義使命　
(芬]漢訥·伊索拉一米提倫　權(quán)衡與正當(dāng)性：對(duì)法律原則權(quán)衡的反思
[斯洛文尼亞]馬里揚(yáng)·帕夫克比克　[奧]弗里德里?！だ彰窢栒摫壤瓌t　
[意]阿爾貝特·維斯帕茲阿尼　邁向一種對(duì)法律隱喻的詮釋學(xué)路徑
[土]埃伊萊姆·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觀念
張嘉尹　法律的教義知識(shí)和跨學(xué)科研究：一個(gè)方法論的反思　
黃維幸　法律方法論和科學(xué)哲學(xué)的契合：融合事實(shí)和法律　
[巴西]霍奧·查維斯　米歇爾·福柯的治理概念：對(duì)法律的最終否定
本輯作者名錄　
引證體例　

章節(jié)摘錄

版權(quán)頁：插圖：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.

圖書封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    法哲學(xué)與法社會(huì)學(xué)論叢·二0一一年第一期 PDF格式下載

---