正义观念史的逻辑表达

正义观念是以人的理性对自然和社会必然性不断进行超越作为基础的,其发展逻辑事实上经历了由德性正义到契约正义、经济正义,再到社会正义的发展历程。通过不同历史境遇的人类对各自所处时代之现实非正义的批判和理想正义的构思,基于经济计算的个体与整体、政治与法律等各类冲突也不断变迁和获得新的解决。     

古希腊正义观的嬗变

正义在古希腊是先哲们探求的重要课题。文章在对古希腊哲学家和政治学家们的不同正义观系统梳理的基础上 ,揭示了其共同特征 :“神”是正义的基础 ;个人美德和社会规范是正义的性质 ;理性是正义的内在精神 ,并阐述了古希腊正义观与近现代各种正义观的内在关联及区别。     

解读"持有的正义"

“持有的正义”是诺齐克的有关财产权的理论 ,是其自由主义政治哲学的一块基石。诺齐克将“持有的正义”划分为“获取的正义”和“转让的正义” ,他认为只要财产的最初的获取是符合正义原则的 (即起点的正义 ) ,而且财产的转让也是符合正义原则的 (即过程的正义 ) ,那么最终的财产就是符合正义原则的 (即持有的正义 ) ,由此所产生的财产权是神圣不可侵犯的。诺齐克的这一理论在世界范围内有很大的影响 ,也引起了众多的争论。本文通过解读“持有的正义” ,与诺齐克平等对话 ,说明其这一理论基石并非是那么牢靠的 ,并非是无懈可击的。     

制度正义何以可能——社会契约思想的伦理视角

社会契约思想代表和体现的伦理精神实质就是公平、平等、自由、诚信、负责任和理性,而这一思想恰恰是社会制度正义的基本保证.从古至今,社会契约思想的伦理追求,不断地激励着一大批有着高度社会责任感的学者和思想家们去探寻和践履.时至今日,我国正处于大力发展社会主义市场经济、构建社会主义和谐社会的新时代,应当追求制度正义的最大化,它饱含着制度正义的社会契约伦理精神,无疑成为我们当前经济、政治、文化、社会建设四位一体的社会理想的重要思想保证.     

美国政治中的理想契约

美国立宪政治的原则与近代社会契约论有紧密关系。赞成社会契约论模式的自由主义学者往往援引美国宪政的例子来论证现实主义政治的合法性与成功性 ,论证政治不应当诉诸现实之外的其它考虑。但是以R·贝拉为代表的理想主义的政治哲学家却反对简单的社会契约 ,而提出双层的社会契约 ,指出在美国制度层面的社会契约背后 ,还有更重要的宗教—道德的精神契约。不理解这一契约 ,就无法理解现实社会契约的历史运作 ;不复兴这一内在契约 ,就无法在今天维系制度上的社会契约     

朝向正义与德性--奥尼尔论正义与德性的统一

正义与德性是西方伦理学的两个重要范畴,当代自由主义与共同体主义围绕二者的关系问题展开了激烈的论辩,使其成为当代西方伦理学争论的焦点.本文详细地分析了英国女哲学家奥罗拉·奥尼尔对此问题的观点奥尼尔主要是站在自由主义的立场上,针对共同体主义对自由主义的批评,重新解释了实践理性、规则、正义、德性等自由主义的核心概念,试图在一种新的实践理性的基础上达到正义与德性的统一.     

多元正义理论的当代阐述——戴维·米勒多元正义理论述评

米勒的正义理论挑战了包括罗尔斯等自由主义政治哲学中坚持单一正义原则的各种学说,倡导一种"社会情境多元正义论"。这一理论根据社会情境具体的实践需要,采取具体的正义原则的方法分析了三种关系模式与三种正义原则的对应关系;在如何实现社会正义的问题上,米勒重视结果正义,但同时主张要保证程序的公平;面对全球化和文化多元主义的挑战,米勒提出了社会正义追求应采取的两手对策。米勒的多元正义理论拓展了正义理论的研究空间,为21世纪正义理论的探索提供了可借鉴的思路,但其理论因缺乏世界历史视野而存在着一定的局限性。     

代际气候正义的陷阱

从气候伦理上看，代内正义是解决代际正义的前提。在应对气候变化的研究和谈判中，不断强调代际气候正义，实际上是要求所有当代人抛开历史责任共同减少排放。这隐藏着发达国家的一个“阴谋”：放弃自己的历史责任。无论是代际还是代内，分配正义的核心价值都要求对弱势群体给予特殊关照。气候变化产生的利益与损失存在着不平等分配。气候变化的受益者是否有义务向受害者提供补偿或援助，已经成为一个迫切的伦理道德问题。     

近代社会契约论的权利／权力观的三种维度

社会契约论的不同范式往往取决于它们背后的不同权利观 ;而不同的权利观又依托其背后的不同“权力”或“力量”(Power)的理解。我们撷取近代社会契约论的三个主要类型———卢梭、洛克、斯宾诺莎———进行分析与比较 ,以阐明这一看法 ,指出他们各自对于人性力量的深层看法决定了他们的社会契约的不同逻辑。     

反思性建构与实质意蕴赋予——试析同行评议中的程序正义

在科学及学术研究领域,同行评议方法正被广泛采用。与此同时,其中暴露出的问题与弊端使得同行评议制度与其初衷渐行渐远。本文主张旨向“程序正义”的路径,并以“实质正义”作为同行评议机制以及相应程序执行的参照与指导原则。“程序正义”在“实质正义”的观照之下,从强调重视“前制度”阶段到“程序内在价值”得以充分赋予;从审慎观察、反思制度与实践执行情况再到最终对程序制度作出“修正”,在这样一个开放、互动、持续的建构过程中得以重塑其内涵。     

论实体正义与程序正义的关系

法的正义是实体正义与程序正义的统一。在实体正义与程序正义的关系上,人们传统上倾向于重实体正义、轻程序正义,甚至认为实体正义决定程序正义。实际上,程序正义具有独立于实体正义的价值,程序正义的独立价值应该得到足够重视,但又不能把程序正义绝对化。     

Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice: Dealing with Rule Breaking

This article identifies similarities among three approaches to dealing with rule breaking: the procedural justice model, the restorative justice model, and the study of moral development. Each argues that the long-term goal when dealing with rule breaking is to motivate rule breakers to become more self-regulating in their future conduct. This goal is undermined by punishment-focused models of sanctioning. Sanction-based models, which dominate current thinking about managing criminals, have negative consequences for the individual wrongdoer and for society. It is argued that greater focus needs to be placed on psychological approaches whose goal is to connect with and activate internal values within wrongdoers with the goal of encouraging self-regulatory law-related behavior in the future.     

从休谟的正义理论看正义的多重特征

正义问题是人类永恒的问题之一,文章从休谟的正义理论出发,考察了亚里士多德和密尔以及罗尔斯的相关论述,刻画出正义所具有的多重特征——交互性、涵摄性、功利等级上的高阶性以及动机上的低阶性,并最终分析了这些特征之间的内在关联。     

Youth Justice in New Zealand: Restorative Justice in Practice?

The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 put in place new objects, principles, and procedures for youth justice in New Zealand. Both the philosophy underpinning this system and the use of family group conferences exemplify a restorative justice approach that has now been adopted in many other countries. This article describes these changes and presents some of the results of recently published research that examines the extent to which young offenders have been diverted from courts and custody, held accountable for their actions, and had their wellbeing enhanced. It suggests that the New Zealand youth justice system has achieved many but not all of its goals, and that there are still aspects where improvement is possible.     

Cost-Sharing in Civil Justice

As an economic factor affecting access to justice, the cost of justice naturally constitutes an element of judicial reform. It is the overall deconstruction of the cost of civil justice, rather than partial observation and analysis confined to litigation costs, that can legitimize the sharing of court and litigation costs and clarify the demarcation between public and private costs. This first-order rule of cost-sharing is intended to establish a balance between the state’s investment of public resources in the judicial system and the costs borne by the litigant. The second-order rule of cost-sharing centers on the distribution of litigation costs among litigants. This requires not only the setting up of the goal of just and equitable sharing of litigation costs, but also the overall consideration of the adjustment function of the cost mechanism in litigation and pursuit of the general improvement of the justice system. The third-order cost-sharing rule should focus on giving full play to the legal services market and social organizations in sharing the cost of litigation. Its success will depend on the development of professional ethics and on legal regulation.     

Justice and Public Opinion

One of the key questions of justice has become the subject of a discussion that has developed in Izvestia. It can be said that its kernel is the matter of the independence of the judiciary. It is this question that underlies the article by Korenevskii and Sukhodolets, "A Cause of Errors" [Otchego byvaiut oshibki] (Izvestia, No. 61), against which Galkin wrote in his article "The Court and Public Passions" [Sud i ob-shchestvennyestrasti] (Izvestia, No. 91).     

Probation and Social Justice

Correspondence to: David Smith, Department of Applied Social Science, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YL, UK. E-mail: d.b.smith{at}lancaster.ac.uk or Maurice Vanstone, Centre for Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, UK. E-mail: m.vanstone{at}swansea.ac.uk Summary The paper considers the past and potential contribution to socialjustice of the probation service in England and Wales, withinthe context of the service's complex origins and tradition,in which humanitarian and disciplinary concerns have long co-existed.The paper explores the service's connections with processesof categorization and governance of the dangerous, and its alignmentwith the ‘psy’ disciplines in developing its claimsto professional expertise. The implications of the recent reassertionof the centrality of psychological understandings of offendingand its prevention, in the form of cognitive-behavioural programmes,are discussed, and the circumstances in which the movement for‘effective practice’ can and cannot contribute tosocial justice are discussed. The paper then explains the groundsfor believing that a concern with social justice entails a commitmentto crime prevention at a level beyond that of direct work withknown offenders, and explores the potential of restorative justiceas a means of achieving a reintegrative and participatory approachto community safety. The paper concludes with a discussion ofthe service's successes and failures in anti-discriminatorypractice, and the feasibility of a social justice agenda inthe current policy context.     

Dimensions of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice proponents tend to focus their attention on criminal justice initiatives in a small number of developed countries, but restorative processes (which encourage citizens to negotiate among themselves, rather than rely on professionals to adjudicate), and restorative values (which emphasize the importance of repairing and preventing harm), can be found across a wide range of regulatory fields. Teachers, social workers, corporate regulators, civil mediators, members of truth commissions, diplomats, and peacekeepers all—at least some of the time—practice a variety of restorative justice. Consideration of these often-neglected examples can help refine current restorative justice theory and practice, which in turn has insights to offer practitioners and researchers in these fields.