百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[法治的基本原则]
郭国汀律师专栏
·论英雄
·思想家是真正的王者
·论诗人/郭国汀
·诗论/郭国汀
·人性兽性的证明 南郭
·论嘲讽/南郭
·讽刺与赞美
·南郭点评芦笛
·竞技的由来与意义
·思想言论自由
·精神与物质同性
·自由的含义
·历史的价值
·战争与国家
·自学与真才实学
·欢迎批评批判
·其实我对法官充满了敬意!
·情由可言,难言之隐
·沉重的心!
·我为小点格格说句公道话
·堂堂正正做个真正的中国人!
·为自由为独立为思想的彻底解放大家努力呵!
·吾之专业乃出庭诉讼律师
·怒气
·最美丽的人
·南郭评论美人美言美语美文
·吾之教授梦在今天实现! 南郭
·南郭:我的遗嘱与托孤
·男子汉的眼泪/南郭
·性格决定命运/南郭
·文学感言/郭国汀
·郭国汀:春
·郭国汀:读实秋有感.
·郭国汀:理想.
·郭国汀:律师.
·郭国汀:作文.
·郭国汀:坚韧不拔
·郭国汀:兴趣.
·信函/南郭
·日记与书信/南郭
·性格/南郭
·天才,蠢才,笨蛋/南郭
·陈良宇是中共残酷政治斗争的牺牲品
·郭国汀 国人民族主义乃中共误导所致
·人民公社万岁?!--《辉煌的幻灭》读后感
·如何成为一名伟大的,优秀的法律人?网友评论
·如何成为一名对社会有用的人
·谁杀死了中国伟大的诗人杨春光?
·忆对我前半生影响至深的三位老师
·A Letter to a Chinese
·不敢讲真话的民族注定是受奴役遭天谴的软骨头的劣等种族
·This is no time to kowtow to China
·南郭初步定论宣昶玮
·自封上帝皇帝圣人者:狂妄无知之徒?!
·南郭点评宣昶玮自封紫薇圣人
·南郭点评张千帆教授论宪政
·愤怒出诗人,悲愤出伟诗
***(55)郭国汀律师专访
·世纪回眸(69)-专访郭国汀之一
·世纪回眸(70)-专访郭国汀律师之二
·郭国汀谈郭飞雄、力虹、陈树庆遭被捕
·法律人的历史使命---答《北大法律人》主编采访录
·郭国汀律师答亚洲周刊纪硕鸣采访实录
·希望之声专访:声援高智晟同时也是在为自己
·胡平章天亮郭国汀谈中华文化与道德重建
·希望之声专访郭国汀 中共是最大的犯罪利益集团
·中共已是末日黄昏----郭国汀声援杨在新律师
·希望之声专访郭国汀用法律手段揪出幕后凶手
·【专访】郭国汀从海事律师到人权律师的转变
·专访郭国汀:为女儿打破沉默
·郭国汀谴责中共对他全家迫害恐吓
·郭国汀律师谈中国司法现状
·人权律师郭国汀在加拿大谈六四
·加拿大华人举办烛光悼念纪念六四-著名人权律师郭国汀称退党运动具有重大意义 
·采访郭国汀律师:被逼离婚 战斗到底
·华盛顿邮报报导高智晟律师事件
·[专访]郭国汀律师:从刘金宝案谈开去
·希望之声专访郭国汀和盛雪
·大纪元专访郭国汀 中共垮台是必然的
·郭国汀谈高智晟律师的公开信
·中共的末日只是时间迟早的问题
·中华文化与道德重建
·【专访】郑恩宠律师郭国汀谈郑案内情
·【专访】辩护律师郭国汀谈清水君案
·郭国汀指雅虎遵守当地法律说无法律根据
·郭国汀触怒司法当局:中国律师维护社会正义风险大
·US lawmakers ask Beijing to reinstate law firm of rights activist
***国际透视
·北朝鲜疯狂发展核武器为哪般?
·中国强劳产品出口的罪孽
·郭国汀 中国人民的真正朋友加拿大总理斯蒂芬 哈柏
·只有抛弃马列毛实现法治自由民主21世纪才有可能属于中国
·华盛顿邮报详细报导陈光诚案判决情况
·中国是国际网络表达自由的头号敌人
·华盛顿邮报陈光诚案庭审报导Chinese Rights Activist Stands Trial After Police Detain Defense Team
·新闻检查最严厉的十个国家胡锦涛称要向北朝鲜和古巴学习政治!
·国际人权观察就赵长青狱中受虐致胡温公开函
·中国驻美使馆拒收立即释放师涛的国际呼吁书
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
法治的基本原则

法治的基本原则
   
   郭国汀
   
   

   
   法治到底有那几项基本原则?古今中外法学家们从未有过公认一致的结论,不同时期不同国家的法学家各有所见,有些主张大同小异有些则相差甚大。事实上,法治概念与所有其他概念一样,都是渐渐发展完善的。例如:
   
   
   
   首创“法治”一词的英国著名法学家戴西认为:“法治有三层含义:一是任何人均不得因法律未明文禁止的行为,而受到惩罚或支付赔偿;[1]二是每个人的法律权利和自由均得由普通法院决定;[2]三是每个人的个人权利均源于英国的共同法,而非源于一部成文宪法,因此,英国宪法乃是法院通常作用的产物,而非法院管辖权的渊源”。[3]亦即戴西之法治原则是指法无明文不为罪即罪行法定原则,法院裁断是非的最终决定权;及习惯法高于成文法。这显然与现代法学界公认的法治之“法律面前人人平等”的首要原则及法律恒定性,普遍适用性与可知性法治原则有重大区别。
   
   
   
   海瓦德(Heward)勋爵特别强调法治的三项原则:除非经普通法院法官和培审团依法定程序审理确认违法事实,任何人不得被非法拘禁,惩罚或判处损害赔偿;每个人,无论其地位如何,均受国家共同法律的管辖,且均应对其违反法律的任何行为按照普通法院(民事和刑事)承担个人责任;任何人不得以他的违法行事是因服从上级的命令为由有效抗辩。[4]这里海瓦德首先强调的是“正当程序原则”;其次,实质强调“恶法非法原则”;第三“法律面前人人平等原则”。
   
   
   
   约瑟夫(Joseph R)归纳法治原则如下[5]:1、法律应该是可预期而非溯及既往的(可知性);2、法律应当稳定而不能经常变更,因为若不了解法律内容,将妨碍人们受法律的指导(恒定性);3、制定法律应当有清晰的规则和程序(立法符合程序性);4、必须保障司法官的独立(法官独立审判权);5、应当遵守自然正义的原则,尤其那些关于公正审理听证的权利(法律公正正义性);6、法庭应当有对其他原则执行情况的司法审查的权力(法院最终裁定性);7、法庭应当是可接近的,任何人不得被拒绝正义(法院向全体公民平等开放);8、控制罪行防范机构的执法自由决定权以防其滥用法律”(限制法官自由决定权)。[6]
   
   
   
   富勒认为法治原则包括:法律的普遍性,众所周知,不得溯及既往,明确清晰,连贯性,可行性(不得要求不可能的事),恒久性,以及在公布的规则与官员行为之间完全相符。[7]
   
   
   
   贝尔顿( Kleinfeld Belton)认为“虽然未确立对所有实践均适用的法治的定义,但该基本领域有共同原则。他确认法治有如下五项原则: 1。政府受法律制约和统治;2。法律面前人人平等;3。法律和秩序的建立;4。正义的有效和可预测的适用;5。人权的保护”。[8]
   
   
   “法治的三项伟大原则乃是:法律的普遍性,立法权至上,司法和行政行为的合法性”。[9]
   
   “法治成为共同法的基本原则。其最基本的形式即为法律面前的平等,公正和正义”。[10]
   
   
   综合上述法学家们提出的18项法治原则可以归纳成如下五类:
   
   · 涉及立法机构的有三项:立法至上原则、立法与执法正当程序原则、习惯法至上原则;
   
   · 涉及法律立法技术程序正义者有三项:罪行法定原则、法律可知性原则、法律恒定性原则;
   
   · 涉及法院权能的有四项:法院最终决定权原则、法院司法审查权原则、法官独立原则、限制法官任意决定权原则;
   
   · 涉及法律公正实体正义者有四项:恶法非法原则;司法合法性原则;自然正义原则;公正和正义原则;此四项原则可归纳为法律正义性原则。
   
   · 涉及法律适用对象者有:法律面前人人平等原则、政府(总统)受法律约束原则、法律普遍适用性原则、公民可诉至法院原则、人权保护原则。前三项实质上同属法律面前人人平等。
   
   据此可见法治观分为广义与狭义两类:广义的法治观包括程序和实体正义原则,而狭义的法治观仅含程序正义原则。我认为美国Puget大学桑德法学院吉姆斯旁德教授对法治的论述彼为经典“法治要求人们根据已知的,具有普遍适用性的固定规则来管理国家。如果要求人民遵守法治,那么法律就应当是众所周知的(至少是可知的);假如期望人民能够妥善安排他们的生活,那么法律(包括寻些怎样修改法律的规则)就必须是恒定的;最后,假使要真正做到法律面前人人平等,那么法律就必须是普遍适用的。”[11]亦即旁德教授归纳的法治四原则乃是法律的可知性、普遍性、和恒定性和法律面前人人平等。如果再加上法律正义性原则,和可诉性原则更趋于完善。因为单纯程序正义意义上的法治原则,无法保证法律本身的正义性,也无法确保受害公民的诉权。共产党国体制下正由于法律正义性和可诉性的严重缺位,进一步使得根本没有法治生存的余地。而所有的自由社会都是建立在相同的法治基础之上的。在某种意义上说,法治原则甚至高于民主原则。因为凡是法治健全的社会,公民的基本人权和自由皆有起码的保障;凡是没有法治或法治不彰的社会,公民既无自由,人权也决无法律保障。
   
   
   
   2010年5月31日第222个反中共极权专制暴政争自由人权民主绝食争权抗暴民权运动日
   
   
   
   
   
   [1] See A.V. A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 179-201 (7th ed. 1908) (the Rule of Law in England).at 183. As Dicey defined it, the Rule of Law had three meanings in England: (1) no one can be made to suffer punishment or to pay damages for any conduct not definitely forbidden by law; (2) everyone's legal rights and liabilities are determined by the ordinary courts of the realm; and (3) everyone's individual rights are derived from the ordinary law of the land, not from a written constitution, so that the English Constitution is the product of the ordinary functioning of the courts and not the source of the courts' jurisdiction
   
   [2] See A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 179-201 (7th ed. 1908) (the Rule of Law in England). at 189.
   
   [3] See A.V. A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 179-201 (7th ed. 1908) (the Rule of Law in England). at 191.
   
   [4]The Rt. Hon. Lord Hewart of Bury, The New Despotism (Benn, 1929) at 26-27. Hewart explained what he meant by the Rule of Law. His account, drawing heavily on Dicey, is unexceptional. He emphasised three principles in particular: that no one can lawfully be restrained or punished or condemned in damages save for a violation of the law established to the satisfaction of a judge or jury in proceedings regularly instituted in one of the ordinary courts; that everyone, whatever his position, is governed by the ordinary law of the land and personally liable for anything done by him contrary to that law, being subject to the ordinary courts, civil and criminal; and that no one charged with a violation of the law may effectively plead, in any court, that his act was done in obedience to the command of any superior.
   
   [5] Joseph Raz's principles of rule of law are as follows: • That laws should be prospective rather than retroactive. • Laws should be stable and not changed too frequently, as lack of awareness of the law prevents one from being guided by it. • There should be clear rules and procedures for making laws. • The independence of the judiciary has to be guaranteed. • The principles of natural justice should be observed, particularly those concerning the right to a fair hearing. • The courts should have the power to judicial review the way in which the other principles are implemented. • The courts should be accessible; no man may be denied justice. • The discretion of law enforcement and crime prevention agencies should not be allowed to pervert the law.
   
   [6] 另一作者归纳Joseph Raz法治原则如下:"The Rule of Law and Its Virtue" in The Authority Law, (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1979 at 214-18.) (1 prospectivity, publicity and clarity; (2) stability; (3) making of particular laws and orders should be guided by public, stable, clear general rules; (4) independence of the judiciary; (5) conformity to natural justice (due process considerations such as fair hearing by unbiased tribunal) (6) judicial review (limited to ensuring conformity to rule of law); (7) easy accessibility to courts; and (8) control of discretion of crime-preventing agencies so that the law is not perverted.- Joseph Raz's list, which he considers incomplete, is: (1)可预期性,公开性和明确性;(2)稳定性;(3)制定特定的法律或命令应当受公开,稳定,清晰的一般原则指导;(4)司法独立;(5)与自然正义相符 (正当程序考虑诸如由公正的法庭公正审理);(6)司法审查(限制并确保符合法治);(7)容易诉诸法院;(8)控制犯罪防范机构的自由决定权以防法律被滥用。
   
   [7] Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1964) at 41-44.)principles or precepts of the rule of law. Lon Fuller's list has been rightly influential: generality of law. promulgation. non-retroactivity, clarity, consistency of laws, not requiring the impossible, constancy of law through time, and congruence between official action and declared rule;
   
   [8] while there is no set definition of the rule of law encompassing all its practices, there is a basic realm of common principles. The scholar Rachel Kleinfeld Belton identifies five: 1. a government bound by and ruled by law; 2. equality before the law; 3. the establishment of law and order; 4. the efficient and predictable application of justice; and 5. the protection of human rights.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场