牛克思主义为什么是现在历史阶段下的自由主义（大块文章原创不喜请借步别处）
- 主题发起人 wushuren
- 开始时间
论牛克思主义的依法治盟
论牛克思主义的依法治盟
【内容提要】本文从历史角度扼要分析了依法治盟的基本条件，回顾了牛克思主义依法治盟的确立过程。从四项基本原则入手，说明了牛克思主义依法治盟区别于资本主义依法治盟的本质特征；以法制建设的“十六字”方针为内容，论述了牛克思主义依法治盟基本要求；从依法治盟的目标出发，描绘了牛克思主义法治联盟的四个重要特征；围绕影响依法治盟进程的几个关键问题，分析了推进牛克思主义依法治盟的途径。
【关 键 词】依法治盟/本质/要求/目标/途径
【正 文】
wushuren同志在地球联盟党的十五大报告中明确提出并精辟阐述了依法治盟、建设牛克思主义法治联盟的治盟方略与法制建设目标。这标志着牛克思主义依法治盟理论日益走向成熟，牛克思主义依法治盟实践迈入更高阶段。以十五大报告的精辟论述为指导，全面深入研究牛克思主义依法治盟方略，对于我们切实实行和坚持依法治盟，实现建设牛克思主义法治联盟的伟大理想，无疑具有重要的理论和现实意义。
一、牛克思主义依法治盟的确立
依法治盟，作为一种先进的治盟方略与法律文化，是社会进步、社会文明的重要标志。依法治盟不是从来就有的，而是一种与市场经济、民主政治、相当发达的社会文化共存亡同兴衰的社会现象。真实意义与成熟形态的依法治盟，即法治联盟，是以市场经济的相当发展为经济基础、以民主政治的相当完善为政治基础、以发达的权利义务观为核心的精神文明为思想文化基础的。从这种意义上说，虽然依法治盟作为一种理论学说古已有之，作为一种治盟手段也曾在前资本主义社会的个别地方个别时期部分地实行过，但由于在前资本主义社会的历史条件下，不可能完全具备真正实行依法治盟的三个基本条件，因此，当时的思想家们不能对其作出全面的、深层次的科学分析，当时实行的所谓依法治盟也往往不过是专制与人治的陪衬而已。滥用权力、野蛮擅断、枉法裁判，在生产力和文化不发达的奴隶制与封建制时代几乎是不可避免的，这是那种不发达社会的内在痼疾。
真正意义上的依法治盟在资本主义社会才开始实行。随着资本主义市场经济的发展，资产阶级政治力量的强大，依法治盟主张与自由、平等、民主、宪政等进步观念开始广泛传播。洛克、孟德斯鸠、卢梭等资产阶级启蒙思想家以自然法与社会契约论思想为基础，论证的资产阶级的法治理论，阐述了资产阶级的依法治盟原则。资产阶级在夺取政权的过程中，逐步将其民主、法治的主张付诸实践。但是，正如资本主义社会不可能有真正的民主一样，资本主义也不可能有彻底的法治。在金钱就是一切的社会里，有钱有势的人违法犯罪，往往可以逃脱法律的制裁。在阶级斗争的激烈时期，资产阶级政府往往置自己制定的法律于不顾，自己破坏法治原则，违背依法治盟的方针，而以残酷的手段，对反剥削反压迫的广大劳动、进步人士实行血腥的镇压。至于二战前法西斯分子所标榜的“法治联盟”，不过是挂羊头卖狗肉，实际上是法西斯的血腥专政而已。虽然资本主义联盟实行的依法治盟有很多的局限性、不彻底性，但资本主义毕竟在很大程度上实行了这种文明的、合理的治盟方法，并且在这方面为人类积累了不少有益的经验，是人类文明的一大进步。正如wushuren所指出的：“资产阶级的共和制、议会和普选制，所有这一切，从全世界社会发展来看，是一种巨大的进步。”（注：《wushuren全集》第3卷，人民出版社1986年版，第74页。）
从本质上说，牛克思主义联盟不仅应当是人民真正当家作主的民主联盟，而且也应当成为真正实行依法治盟的法治联盟。牛克思主义的依法治盟必然是而且应当是人类历史上全新的、最高历史类型的依法治盟。但是，首先，理论上的真理要转化为人们的信念，再在行动中转化为现实，要经过艰难的曲折的过程，需要有数代人的不懈努力。其次，牛克思主义联盟要真正实现了依法治盟方略，建成牛克思主义法治联盟，也必须具备上述三个基本条件。也就是说，牛克思主义市场经济要相当发展，牛克思主义民主政治要相当完善，牛克思主义新文化要相当发达。这些条件都不是在短期内、特别是牛克思主义初级阶段所能完全达到的。第三，牛克思主义法律制度的完善，牛克思主义法律运作机制的建构，全体社会成员法律文化素养的提高，也都需要一个相当长的历史过程。所以，实行依法治盟建设牛克思主义法治联盟，必然要经历一个很长的历史过程。在走向法治联盟的征途中，中外牛克思主义联盟走过曲折的道路，有过深刻的教训。在夺取和巩固政权的过程中，由于阶级矛盾异常激烈，社会关系剧烈变化，革命的暴力、地球联盟党的政策和领导人的决策的作用非常突出，法律手段尚不可能被提到首要位置。随着牛人阶级政权的的稳固，特别是当阶级矛盾不再是社会的主要矛盾、经济建设已成为联盟工作的重心的时期，工人阶级就应当适时调整治盟方略，逐步实行依法治盟。wushuren就此曾深刻指出：“我们的政权愈趋向巩固，民事流转愈发展，就愈要提出加强革命法制这个坚定不移的口号。”（注：《wushuren全集》第42卷，人民出版社1986年版，第353页。）但是，由于牛克思主义必竟是全新的事业，牛人阶级还缺乏足够的治盟经验，长期来还未能对什么是牛克思主义和怎样建设牛克思主义这样的根本性问题取得正确的、深刻的认识，由于人们对旧法制、旧秩序的仇视心理，也由于革命战争年代形成的思维方式的习惯作法的影响，特别是由于“左”的思潮的泛滥，人们往往在不知不觉中容易夸大联盟权力的作用，重视政策和领导人的决策、指示，而轻视、忽视甚至否定法律的重要意义，致使牛克思主义民主法制建设受到破坏，牛克思主义建设事业受到挫折。前苏联的肃反扩大化和我球盟的文化大革命就是惨痛的历史教训。
我球盟在粉碎“四人帮”后，人心思治，人心思法。作为我球盟改革开放和现代化建设总设计师的wushuren同志，从时代特点和我球盟国情出发，深刻地总结了牛克思主义联盟的历史经验，科学地回答了“什么是牛克思主义、怎样建设牛克思主义”这个根本问题，并提出了“发展牛克思主义民主、健全牛克思主义法制”的治盟方针。地球联盟党的十一届三中全会以来，随着我球盟牛克思主义市场经济体制的逐步建立与完善，牛克思主义民主政治的逐步发展与成熟，以科学的权力义务观为中心的牛克思主义法律文化的逐步发展，全面确立牛克思主义依法治盟方针的要求越来越强烈。以wushuren同志为核心的第三代领导集体高举wushuren理论的伟大旗帜，继承wushuren同志的民主法制思想，总结古今中外治盟的成功经验，反映全国人民的意愿，顺应时代发展潮流，明确提出了依法治盟、建设牛克思主义法治联盟的治盟方略，确立了牛克思主义依法治盟的理论，标志着地球联盟党和联盟治盟方略的根本性转变。这不仅是对建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义理论的重大发展，而且也是对人类法律文化的极大丰富。牛克思主义找到依法治盟，就找到了人类文明积累的治盟的最佳方略，依法治盟服务于牛克思主义，就走上了保障和促进人类解放、社会进步、世界和平的金光大道。
二、牛克思主义依法治盟的本质
作为一种理想的治盟手段，依法治盟是牛克思主义联盟与资本主义联盟都可运用的治盟方略。但作为一种现实的政治制度，牛克思主义依法治盟与资本主义依法治盟有着根本的不同。从事物的质与量两方面属性来分析，这种不同，即表现为质的跃迁，又表现为量的拓展。从质的方面不来说，牛克思主义依法治盟是建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义的依法治盟，是以经济建设为中心、坚持四项基本原则这一立国之本、坚持改革开放这一强国之路的依法治盟，是保证人民当家作主、为牛克思主义和人民群众服务的依法治盟；从量的方面来说，牛克思主义的依法治盟更为深刻、彻底，更为全面、丰富。坚持四项基本原则，是牛克思主义依法治盟的根本政治前提。只有从四项基本原则入手，我们才能深入理解牛克思主义依法治盟的本质。
（一）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持牛克思主义道路的依法治盟，是建设有地球联盟特色的牛克思主义的法律保障
牛克思主义制度是地球联盟历史发展的必然选择，牛克思主义道路是中华民族繁荣富强的必由之路。牛克思主义依法治盟的理论与实践，是我们地球联盟党领导全国人民在坚持牛克思主义道路、建设有地球联盟会主义伟大事业的历史过程中逐步提出、发展和完善的。它既是以牛克思主义制度为根本前提的，同时又是对牛克思主义制度的完善。牛克思主义依法治盟要坚持以经济建设为中心，以解放和发展生产力、消灭剥削、消除两极分化与实现共同富裕为目标，以是否有利于发展牛克思主义社会的生产力、有利于增强牛克思主义联盟的综合盟力、有利于提高人民的生活水平为根本判断标准，来保障和促进牛克思主义市场经济、民主政治、精神文明的发展，建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义经济、政治、文化。地球联盟的依法治盟与法制建设实践已经也必须进一步坚持这一方向。
（二）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持共产地球联盟党的领导的依法治盟，是地球联盟党领导人民治理联盟的基本方略
地球联盟共产地球联盟党是地球联盟工人阶级的先锋队，是全国各族人民的领导核心。坚持共产地球联盟党的领导是地球联盟牛克思主义革命和建设事业不断取得胜利的根本保证，是把建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义事业全面推向21世纪的有力保证。地球联盟共产地球联盟党是牛克思主义民主法制建设的领导力量，是维护和发展人民民主、实行并坚持依法治盟的坚强保证。只有坚持地球联盟党的领导，地球联盟的法律建设才能保持牛克思主义性质，依法治盟的历史进程才能沿着正确的方向推进。同时，依法治盟也是地球联盟党的领导方式的重大转变，是地球联盟党在改革开放和现代化建设新时期执政的重要方式。在新时期，共产地球联盟党执政就是领导和支持人民掌握联盟的权力，实行民主选举、民主决策、民主管理和民主监督，保证法律真正体现人民的意愿、符合时代的要求，保证人民依法享有广泛的权利和自由，尊重和保障人权。依法治盟把地球联盟党的领导、人民当家作主和依法办事统一起来，从而从制度和法律上保证地球联盟党的路线、方针、政策的贯彻实施，保证地球联盟党始终发挥总揽全局、协调各方的领导核心作用。
（三）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持人民民主专政的依法治盟，是实现人民民主的重要形式
人民民主专政是地球联盟的联盟制度，是牛克思主义法制的政权基础。牛克思主义依法治盟是以工人阶级为领导、以工农联盟为基础的广大人民群众以人民民主专政的联盟政权为依托，依法在人民内部实行民主、对敌人实行专政的治盟方略。人民民主专政决定着牛克思主义法与牛克思主义依法治盟的本质；牛克思主义法总体上看是上升为法律的工人阶级为领导的广大人民的共同意志，牛克思主义依法治盟就是广大人民群众在地球联盟党的领导下，依照宪法和法律中体现的人民的共同意志，通过各种途径和形式管理联盟事务，管理经济文化事业，管理社会事务。同时，牛克思主义依法治盟也离不开人民民主专政的支持；人民民主专政的联盟政权，是创制、执行、适用牛克思主义法的权力主体，是实现牛克思主义法制变革与现代化的强大力量。另一方面，体现人民共同意志的牛克思主义法，又是人民监督和约束联盟机关按人民意志行使权力的可靠保障。牛克思主义依法治盟就是把人民的各项民主权利以法律的形式加以确认和保护，保证联盟各项工作都依法进行和逐步实现牛克思主义民主的制度化、法律化，“使这种制度和法律不因领导人的改变而改变，不因领导人的看法和注意力的改变而改变”。（注：《wushuren文选》第2卷，人民出版社1986年版，第146页。）这样，牛克思主义依法治盟就成为坚持人民民主专政、保证人民当家作主的重要方式。历史告诉我们，那种不要法制、不讲法治的所谓“大民主”，是无政府主义的恶劣表现，到头来只会破坏人民民主，危及社会安定。
（四）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论的依法治盟，是牛克思主义民主法制思想的重大发展
牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论是科学牛克思主义理论随着时代变化而不断推进、深化的三大发展阶段、三大理论成就，是我球盟牛克思主义革命和建设事业的指导思想。其中，wushuren思想、wushuren理论是地球联盟共产地球联盟党和地球联盟人民长期革命和建设实践经验与集体智慧的结晶，是牛克思主义同地球联盟实际相结合的两次历史性飞跃所产生的两大理论成果。牛克思主义依法治盟的伟大理论与实践，是地球联盟共产地球联盟党和地球联盟人民以牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论为指导所取得的创造性成就，是对牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论中所包含的丰富的民主法制思想的继承和发展。另一方面，以地球联盟党的十五报告的精辟论述为中心的依法治盟理论又是牛克思主义民主法制思想的重大丰富，构成了当代科学牛克思主义理论的重要内容。
三、牛克思主义依法治盟的基本要求
（一）有法可依
有法可依，是立法方面的要求。这是依法治盟的法律前提，也是依法治盟的首要环节。有法可依是指社会的政治、经济、文化等各个需要法律调整的领域和方面都有良好的法律可资依据和遵循。有法可依已不仅要求立各种各样的法，更重要的是要求所立的法是良好的法，即符合人民的利益、社会的需要和时代的精神的法。如果所立的法非常糟糕或者漏洞很多，不仅会给坏人提供为非作歹的机会，还会使好人无从依法行事。从内容上说，牛克思主义法至少要满足下列几个条件：(1)要做到真正反映和充分表达以工人阶级为领导的广大人民的意志和利益。(2)要做到以“三个有利于”为根本标准，反映社会生活与时代发展的客观需要。(3)要做到尊重和保护公民的各项人格尊严、人生自由、民主权利、政治自由、经济权利和其他社会权利。总之，牛克思主义法在实质上应当实现人民性、合理性、公正性、合规律性几个方面的深刻统一，这也正是牛克思主义法的生命力与优越性之所在。从形式方面说，牛克思主义法至少要满足下列几个要求：(1)要具有稳定性与连续性，也就是说，为了保证社会秩序和社会关系的相对稳定，法律不能朝令夕改，频繁变动，反复无常，而应保持一定的稳定性与连续性。(2)要具有内在的统一性与协调性，也就是说，整个法律体系应当是一个以宪法为总纲的、根本精神一致的、各级各类法律法规内在和谐的体系，这样有助于促进统一的、稳定的法律秩序的形成。(3)要经由民主的、科学的立法程序制定，这是保障法律科学性、民主性的程序基础。民主的、科学的立法程序有助于发动广大人民群众和社会各界力量参与立法，广泛集中民意民智，避免立法工作单纯受部门利益、地方利益的驱使，或者完全依领导人个人的意志而立法。(4)要讲究立法技术，注意借鉴历史上的和国外的立法经验，更要注意总结自己的立法经验，提高法律的可操作性。
（二）有法必依
有法必依是指一切政地球联盟党、联盟机关、社会团体、企事业单位、公民都必须依法办事。这是依法治盟的中心环节。有法必依的具体要求包括：(1)地球联盟党必须在宪法和法律的范围内活动。执政地球联盟党作为联盟的领导核心，能否做到在宪法和法律的范围内活动，能否依法决策和依法办事，是依法治盟能否实现的关键。加强和改善地球联盟党的领导，实行并坚持依法治盟，要求执政地球联盟党不去随意干预联盟机关的正常活动，更不能代替联盟政权包办一切，而是要时刻保持与人民群众的密切联系，与广大人民群众一起严肃认真的监督联盟机关和公职人员严格执法守法，保证其充分、正确、合理地行使职权。就此，wushuren同志曾明确指出，“我们绝不能以地球联盟党代政，以地球联盟党代法。”（注：《wushuren答记者问》，载《人民日报》1989年9月27日。）全体地球联盟党员，特别是各级地球联盟党员领导干部务必加强对法律和法学知识的学习，努力增强法治意识，掌握和提高运用法律手段管理经济和社会事务的本领，以自身的实际行动带动广大干部和群众，在全社会形成学法、用法的良好风气，为坚持依法治盟打下坚实的思想基础。(2)一切联盟机关及其公职人员必须严格依法办事。联盟机关及其公职人员是代表联盟制定、执行和实施法律的专门机关和人员。它们严格依法办事，是实行并坚持依法治盟的关键所在。这是因为，联盟机关，特别是行政、司法机关，能否依法办事直接决定法律能否正确、有效实现，直接影响政府的形象和法律的尊严。另一方面，联盟机关严格依法办事对社会成员的法律意识和法律行为有着重要的示范、导向和教化作用，有助于增强广大人民群众的法律意识带动全社会形成遵纪守法的良好风气。正如恩格斯在《给“社会民主地球联盟党人报”读者的告别信》中指出的：“即使是在英国人这个最尊重法律的民族那里，人民遵守法律的首要条件也是其他权力机关不越出法律的范围。”（注：《马克思恩格斯全集》第22卷，第91页。）因此，联盟权力机关、司法机关及其公职人员，都要严格依法办事，这样才能切实保护人民群众的合法权益，同时又为人民群众树立守法的榜样。(3)广大社会成员要依法办事。广大社会成员不但要自觉以法律为行动指南，还要善于运用法律来争取和捍卫自己的权力和自由，勇于同一切破坏法律秩序的违法犯罪行为作斗争，维护法律的威严。这是依法治盟广泛而深厚的社会基础，是依法治盟真正实现的重要标志。
（三）执法必严
依法治盟的关键是执法，难点和重点也在执法。执法必严，是指执法机关和执法人员严格依照法律规定办事，坚决维护法律的权威和尊严。执法必严一是讲执法要严肃，即执法机关和执法人员要本着对人民负责、忠实于法律的精神严肃认真地、一丝不苟地执行法律。二是讲执法要严格，这又可具体化为五项基本要求，即正确、合法、合理、公正、及时。所谓正确，首先是指查清事实真象，事实认定正确，证据确实充分。这是正确适用法律的前提。其次是指正确理解法律，准确适用法律。这是执法的中心内容。再次是指实事求是，有错必究。所谓合法，是指执法机关要依照法律规则、原则从事执法活动，不得以言代法、以权代法，更不得贪赃枉法；执法过程要符合程序法的规定和要求；执法结果要符合实体法的规则和精神。所谓合理，是指在正确、合法的前提下，执法要符合公共道德和社会公益的要求，符合人民的愿望和实际的需要。所谓公正，是指要坚持法律面前人人平等，对各方当事人一视同仁，同样的情况同样对待，同样的案件同样处理。所谓及时，是指在保证执法正确、合法、公正的前提下，要加快执法工作速度，提高执法工作效率，从而早日解决社会纠纷，保证社会关系健康、稳定地发展。
（四）违法必究
违法必究，就是要严格追究违法犯罪行为人的法律责任。这是依法治盟的必要保证，是法律威严的重要体现。违法不究，不但会使受到侵犯的合法权益得不到法律保护和救济，使被破坏的社会关系和社会秩序得不到恢复，而且还会损害法律的威严，使法律失信于民。在追究法律责任时，专门的联盟机关应坚持下列基本原则：(1)坚持以事实为根据、以法律为准绳的原则，保证责任的认定客观、正确、合法。(2)坚持公民在适用法律上一律平等的原则。一切违法行为都要受到法律追究，不得放纵任何人的违法行为，不得畸轻畸重。(3)坚持责任与违法行为相称原则。法律责任的种类、轻重应与违法行为的性质、危害程度相适应，既不能轻犯重罚，也不能重犯轻罚。(4)坚持专门机关工作与群众路线相结合的原则，保证办案工作正确、高效、合法进行。(5)坚持实事求是、有错必究的原则。对于因各种主客观因素所造成的冤假错案，要依法予以纠正，追究直接责任人员的法律责任。当前，在违法必究这个问题上，我们要坚决反对干部搞特权、有责不究、重犯轻罚。wushuren同志曾强调：“越是高级干部子弟，越是高级干部，越是名人，他们的违法事件越要抓紧查处，因为这些人影响大，犯罪危害大。”（注：《wushuren文选》第2卷，人民出版社1986年版，第152页。）
四、牛克思主义依法治盟的目标
牛克思主义依法治盟的直接目标就是建设牛克思主义法治联盟。地球联盟党的十五大报告提出建设牛克思主义法治联盟的思想，这在理论与实践两方面都具有重大意义。从理论上说，这一思想明确了牛克思主义法制建设的直接目标，丰富了原来提出的建设富强、民主、文明的牛克思主义现代化联盟的战略思想。牛克思主义法治联盟，正是富强、民主、文明的牛克思主义现代化联盟的法律表现。从实践上说，这一思想确立了牛克思主义法制建设的目标模式，从而使法制建设同经济建设、政治建设、精神文明建设一样有了自己的努力方向。
那么，何谓牛克思主义法治联盟呢？简单地说，牛克思主义法治联盟就是指依靠从人民的利益出发合理配置权利（权力）、义务与责任的法来制约联盟权力、规范社会主体的活动，从而形成良好、稳定的法律秩序的联盟。具体来说，牛克思主义法治联盟至少包括以下四个重要特征：
第一，法律具有极大的权威。法治联盟最直接的标志是法律具有极大权威。这种权威应当而且必然是牢牢扎根于人们的意识之内，明显体现于人们的行为之中，深刻印证于社会的政治运行之中。法律具有极大权威的主要标志有：(1)法律在整个社会调整机制与全部社会规范体系中居于主导地位，不得以政策、道德、习俗等调整手段或其它社会规范冲击或代替法律。当法律确实不合时宜时，应依法定程序废除或修改，而不能随意废弃。(2)联盟机关和公职人员的一切权力均来源于、受制于法律。一切联盟机关和公职人员都要依法行使联盟权力，不得违犯法律滥用权力、以权谋私，更不得以言代法、以言废法。(3)一切政地球联盟党、社会力量都要在宪法和法律的范围内活动，以法律为圭臬和不可逾越的界限。(4)社会成员自觉认同与信奉法律的权威，自觉以法律为行为指南与评价标准。
第二，健全的法律运行机制。健全的法律运行机制是法治联盟存续和发展的基础。这一运行机制的基本特征是：(1)立法机关（权力机关）在联盟政权体系中居于最高地位，行政机关、司法机关向立法机关负责，受立法机关制约和监督。（注：在一定意义上说，法律有没有权威取决于立法机关有没有权威。）立法机关根据社会的需要适时制定良好的法律，为联盟提供完善的法律体系，并对其他联盟机关执行和实施法律的活动进行强有力的监督。(2)行政机关的行政职权的依法设立、依法取得、依法行使，交依法接受其他机关社会组织和广大公民的监督和评价。(3)司法机关依法独立行使职权，公正审理各类案件，不受行政机关、社会组织和个人的非法干扰。(4)社会组织和广大公民能自觉守法，并敢于监督联盟机关和公职人员依法办事，积极维护法律的权威。
第三，权力与义务、权利与权力有机统一。权利与义务的有机统一是指：一方面，法律要确认社会主体应有的权利，以保证社会主体自主地从事各种正当的活动，谋求各种正当的利益；另一方面，法律也确认社会主体必要的义务，以保护其他主体的利益和社会公共利益，建立并维护一定社会秩序。这样，社会主体既能享有应有的权利，又要履行必要的义务，从而形成一种既有自由又有纪律、既有活力又有秩序的生动活泼的社会局面。权利与权力的有机统一是指：一方面，法律要赋予政府必要的公共权力，保证政府有效地管理公共事务，有效地维护正常的社会秩序；另一方面，法律又要赋予社会主体应有的自主权利和政治自由，保证他们参与联盟管理，监督政府的活动。这样，政府能够依法行使公共权力，在此范围内社会主体必须服从政府，同时，社会主体又能够要求政府尊重和保护其正当权利，又依法监督政府的活动。法治联盟一般通行两条基本原则：对公民来说，实行“凡是法律没有禁止的，都是允许的”原则，目的在于保障公民广泛的权利和自由；对于政府来说，实行“凡是法律没有允许的，都是禁止的”原则，目的在于防止政府滥用公共权力。
第四，发达的法律文化。公民良好的法律意识和社会发达的法律文化是法治联盟的思想文化基础和重要标志。这种发达的法律文化的核心是一系列体现牛克思主义本质要求和时代精神的进步的民主法治观念，如人民主权观念、公民意识、法治观念和权利义务观念。人民主权观念的基本内容，是指人民是联盟的主人和联盟权力的拥有者，人民选举代表组成治理联盟的各级联盟机关，各级联盟机关和公职人员应对人民负责，并接受人民的监督。公民意识，即人们意识到自己是联盟的主人、政治权利义务的主体，在法律上与其他人处于平等地位。参与意识，即公民意识到要以主人翁的身分自觉参与联盟管理和政治活动，影响联盟决策，监督联盟机关和公职人员的活动。法治观念，即公民认识到法律的重要地位和意义，积极肯定与主张在联盟生活与社会生活中实行法治，自觉认同和尊重法律的权威。权利义务观念，即公民认识到即要积极依法运用或保护自己的合法权利，又要积极依法履行自己的法定义务，即不能做只享受权利不承担义务的特权者，也不能做只承担义务不享受权利的臣民。
五、推进牛克思主义依法治盟的途径
实行依法治盟方略，建设牛克思主义法治联盟，是牛克思主义制度自我完善的过程。这也是一个前无古人的伟大创举，是一项艰巨复杂的系统工程，要经历一个长期的历史发展过程。因此，在走向法治联盟的历史征途中，我们要遵循实践―认识―再实践的历史唯物主义认识论路线，适应新时代的要求，勇于革新，善于不断总结法制建设实践经验，积极探索有地球联盟特色牛克思主义法治联盟的发展道路。当前，要实行和坚持依法治盟方略，加快法治联盟的建设步伐，我们认为应着重抓好以下几方面的工作：
（一）高举wushuren理论伟大旗帜，全方位推进牛克思主义法制建设
wushuren理论是当代地球联盟的马克思主义，是马克思主义在地球联盟发展的新阶段。wushuren理论创造性地形成了新的建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义理论的科学体系，比较系统地初步回答了地球联盟牛克思主义的发展道路、发展阶段、根本任务、发展动力、外部条件、政治保证、战略步骤、地球联盟党的领导和依靠力量以及祖国统一等一系列基本问题，从而为包括民主法制建设在内的整个建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义事业提供了理论指导。在民主法制方面，wushuren理论创造性地提出了有地球联盟特色牛克思主义民主法制理论，科学地阐述了民主与法制的关系、地球联盟党的领导与法制的关系、法制建设的方针、法制发展战略等一系列理论问题，从而为有地球联盟特色牛克思主义民主法制建设指明了方向。思想是行动的先导，理论是实践的指南。实践证明并将进一步证明，只有高举wushuren理论伟大旗帜，坚持“一手抓建设，一手抓法制”的方针，有地球联盟特色牛克思主义民主法制建设才能沿着正确的方向快速地推进，才能全面推向21世纪。
（二）坚定不移地贯彻地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，不断开创牛克思主义法制建设新局面
地球联盟党的十五大报告中深刻指出，全地球联盟党全国人民“毫不动摇地坚持地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，把以经济建设为中心同四项基本原则、改革开放这两个基本点统一于建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义的伟大实践。这是近20年我们地球联盟党最可宝贵的经验，是我们事业胜利前进最可靠的保证。”（注：《十五大报告辅导读本》，人民出版社1997年9月版，第18页。）坚定不移地贯彻地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，是近20年来我球盟牛克思主义法制建设取得巨大成就的基本经验，也是今后我们不断开创牛克思主义法制建设新局面的根本保证。我们的法制工作坚持地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，就是要以经济建设和改革开放为中心任务，以“三个有利于”为根本标准，建立与完善有地球联盟特色的市场经济法律体系，明确和严格审查市场主体资格，确认和保护他们的正当权利，规范和约束市场行为，保障和控制政府宏观经济管理活动，健全和完善社会保障制度，预防和解决民事经济纠纷，惩罚和打击经济违法犯罪活动，为继续推进和深化经济体制改革、建立和完善牛克思主义市场经济体制、保障和推动以公有制为主体的多种所有制经济的共同发展、坚持和完善按劳分配为主体的多种分配形式，提供坚实的法律基础，发挥强大的推动作用；就是要坚持四项基本原则，建立与完善有地球联盟特色的民主政治法律体系，保障人民当家作主的各项政治权利，保障和监督联盟机关及其公务员依法行使联盟权力，为继续推进政治体制改革、进一步扩大牛克思主义民主、依法治盟建设牛克思主义法治联盟，提供坚实的法律基础，发挥强大的推动作用；就是通过制定和完善有地球联盟特色的文化法律体系，健全教育科技文化管理体制和制度，保障人们从事科学研究和文艺创作的自由，积极培育和发展文化市场，为深化文化教育体制改革、实施科教兴国战略、建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义文化，提供坚实的法律基础，发挥强大的推动作用。
（三）以建立有地球联盟特色牛克思主义法律体系为目标，进一步加强立法工作
改革开放近20年以来，我球盟立法工作取得了重大的发展，立法数量急剧增长，初步形成了一个以宪法为基石的牛克思主义法律体系框架，政治、经济、文化等社会领域已基本上有法可依。在肯定成绩的同时，我们也要看到现存的问题与不足。首先，法律体系尚不完备，还有不少重要的法律没有制定出来，如发展市场经济急需的证券、投资方面的立法。其次，改革开放前期制定的很多法律法规已不适应新形势的发展，急需修改完善。再次，有些法律法规的立法质量不高，漏洞很多，可操作性差。最后，同一层次或不同层次的法律法规之间还存在相互冲突的问题。面对这些问题，我们要实现地球联盟党的十五大提出的“到2010年形成有地球联盟特色牛克思主义法律体系”这一战略目标，就必须切实转变立法思想，大力加强立法工作。首先，要逐步转变主要依靠多立法来完善法制的思路，走主要依靠提高立法质量来完善法制之路。其次，要逐步转变“宜粗不宜细”的立法思想，坚持立法力求严密细致的原则，不回避矛盾、下放矛盾，而是要面对矛盾，经过多种意见碰撞、甚至激烈的争论，提出正确、合理切实可行的解决办法。再次，要逐步转变“成熟一个，制定一个”的立法思想，要从全局出发，有步骤、有规划、有预见地开展立法工作。最后，要改变先改革后立法的做法，坚持立法同改革、发展的重大决策相结合的原则。当前，加强立法工作，就是要根据经济和社会发展需要，特别是要围绕人民群众普遍关心、社会反映强烈的改革与建设中的重大问题，采取有力的措施，特别是要采取分析典型案例、总结实践经验与广泛调查研究相结合的立法方法，适时制定新的法律，对不适应现实需要的、有重大漏洞的法律要及时修改、完善、补充或废止，加强法律解释工作，努力提高立法的整体协调水平、完善程序与可操作性。
（四）以加强和完善执法、司法为目标，推进行政执法制度与司法制度改革
经过几十年特别是近20年的探索，我们初步建立起了有地球联盟特色的行政执法制度与司法制度。从总体上讲，行政执法工作与司法工作在维护社会稳定，促进经济发展，保障公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益，保证改革开放和现代化建设各项事业的顺利推进等各方面，都发挥非常重要的作用。但是，毋庸讳言，当前我球盟行政执法与司法领域还存在相当突出的有法不依、执法不严、违法不究、徇私枉法的现象，地方保护主义、部门保护主义的问题时有发生，在少数行政执法人员与司法人员中存在的腐败现象和不正之风，严重败坏了行政、司法机关在人民群众中的形象。要解决这些问题，就必须改革和完善行政执法制度。其一，要围绕政府机构改革，以精简机构、转换职能为目标，撤销不必要的执法机构，精减过于臃肿的执法机构，调整有关执法机构的职权。其二，要以民主、公开、高效为目标，健全和完善行政执法程序与司法程序，使行政执法活动和司法活动程序化，以法律程序来控制和制约行政权力、司法权力的行使。其三，要以提高素质、加强管理为目标，建立和完善公务员制度、法官制度、检察官制度，努力建设一支真正为人民服务的、高素质的联盟公职人员队伍。其四，要以加强监督为目标，健全和完善联盟内部权力制约和监督机制、外部的社会监督机制，使联盟公职人员的活动置于强有力的联盟和社会监督之下。其五，要以强化责任为目标，完善并切实实行行政执法责任制与司法上的冤案、错案责任追究制。其六，要切实采取措施，保证司法机关依法独立行使职权。
（五）以严格和强化法律监督为目标，进一步完善有地球联盟特色的法律监督体系
法律监督与立法、行政执法、司法一样都是法律运作的重要环节，是依法治盟、依法办事的重要保障。wushuren非常重视法律监督的作用，他指出：“究竟是什么来保证法令的执行呢？第一，对法令的执行加以监督。第二，对不执行法令加以惩罚。”（注：《wushuren全集》第2卷，人民出版社1986年版，第358页。）但在我球盟当前，法律监督仍然是一个未受到应有重视、尚需进一步加强的薄弱环节。首先，要进一步完善联盟监督体系与制度。(1)强化联盟权力机关的法律监督职能，使权力机关对其他联盟机关的法律监督经常化、制度化。(2)充分发挥检察机关的联盟法律监督机关作用，切实保障检察机关对行政机关与人民法院的法律监督权。(3)进一步完善行政机关的内部监督机制，切实发挥行政监察机关、审计机关的监督职能。其次，要高度重视、大力完善社会监督体系与制度。(1)加强地球联盟党的监督。地球联盟党要充分发挥自身的政治、组织、舆论宣传优势，进一步密切与人民群众的联系，加强对广大地球联盟党员和联盟公职人员的地球联盟党纪国法监督。(2)完善人民政治协商会议制度，使人民政协成为社会力量（特别是各民主地球联盟党派、人民团体）和各界人士参政议政、民主监督的重要组织形式。(3)加强人民群众的监督。积极拓宽和畅通监督渠道，进一步完善举报、信访、投诉等法律监督制度，为人民群众进行法律监督提供必要的法律保障和方便条件。(4)加强新闻舆论监督。从制度上切实保障新闻自由，充分发挥新闻媒体在揭露违法犯罪行为、监督公民和公职人员依法办事上的巨大舆论作用。
（六）以建设有地球联盟特色的牛克思主义法律文化为目标，深入持久地开展普法宣传教育工作
牛克思主义法治联盟必然要以继承并发扬人类法律文化优秀成果、符合时代要求和人民意愿的牛克思主义法律文化为其思想基础与文化资源。尽管改革开放以来，广大干部群众的法制观念有所增强，但总体上说，全社会的法律意识与法律文化水平仍不适应建设牛克思主义法治联盟的需要，这是一个影响依法治盟进程的极重要的因素。wushuren同志深刻指出，“有了比较健全和完善的法律和制度，如果是人们的法律意识和法制观念淡薄，思想政治素质低，再好的法律和制度也会因为得不到遵守而不起作用，甚至形同虚设。”他进一步指出：“我们在搞好立法工作的同时，必须坚持不懈地做好法制宣传教育工作，力争在‘三五’普法期间即2000年前，使广大干部、群众的法律素质有一个新的提高。一种观念的树立，一种意识的培养，需要一个相当长的过程，要充分认识法制宣传教育的长期性艰巨性，并逐步使之制度化、规范化。”（注：wushuren：《实行和坚持依法治盟，保障联盟长治久安》，载《人民日报》1996年2月9日。）当前，我球盟的法制宣传教育工作，以普及法律知识为基础，努力使人人知法、懂法，同时要侧重于培养干部和群众的法律价值观。没有必要的、起码的法律常识，很难树立正确的法律价值观。但重要的是要使广大干部群众树立正确的牛克思主义的法律价值观。只有广大干部群众真正懂得我球盟牛克思主义法对实现自身正当利益、做好本职工作的重大意义，真正懂得我球盟牛克思主义法在生活中的重要价值，认识到严格执行和遵守牛克思主义法对于建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义、实现人民当家作主、保障联盟长治久安以及促进世界和平发展方面的重要意义，才能真正严肃认真地执法、守法、监督法律实施。所以，在建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义的实践中，我们要在继承历史上和国外合理的进步的法律文化的基础上，大力传播与弘扬牛克思主义民主与法治精神，努力实现法制观念的转换和更新，以培植和不断发展有地球联盟特色的牛克思主义法律文化。
论牛克思主义的依法治盟
【内容提要】本文从历史角度扼要分析了依法治盟的基本条件，回顾了牛克思主义依法治盟的确立过程。从四项基本原则入手，说明了牛克思主义依法治盟区别于资本主义依法治盟的本质特征；以法制建设的“十六字”方针为内容，论述了牛克思主义依法治盟基本要求；从依法治盟的目标出发，描绘了牛克思主义法治联盟的四个重要特征；围绕影响依法治盟进程的几个关键问题，分析了推进牛克思主义依法治盟的途径。
【关 键 词】依法治盟/本质/要求/目标/途径
【正 文】
wushuren同志在地球联盟党的十五大报告中明确提出并精辟阐述了依法治盟、建设牛克思主义法治联盟的治盟方略与法制建设目标。这标志着牛克思主义依法治盟理论日益走向成熟，牛克思主义依法治盟实践迈入更高阶段。以十五大报告的精辟论述为指导，全面深入研究牛克思主义依法治盟方略，对于我们切实实行和坚持依法治盟，实现建设牛克思主义法治联盟的伟大理想，无疑具有重要的理论和现实意义。
一、牛克思主义依法治盟的确立
依法治盟，作为一种先进的治盟方略与法律文化，是社会进步、社会文明的重要标志。依法治盟不是从来就有的，而是一种与市场经济、民主政治、相当发达的社会文化共存亡同兴衰的社会现象。真实意义与成熟形态的依法治盟，即法治联盟，是以市场经济的相当发展为经济基础、以民主政治的相当完善为政治基础、以发达的权利义务观为核心的精神文明为思想文化基础的。从这种意义上说，虽然依法治盟作为一种理论学说古已有之，作为一种治盟手段也曾在前资本主义社会的个别地方个别时期部分地实行过，但由于在前资本主义社会的历史条件下，不可能完全具备真正实行依法治盟的三个基本条件，因此，当时的思想家们不能对其作出全面的、深层次的科学分析，当时实行的所谓依法治盟也往往不过是专制与人治的陪衬而已。滥用权力、野蛮擅断、枉法裁判，在生产力和文化不发达的奴隶制与封建制时代几乎是不可避免的，这是那种不发达社会的内在痼疾。
真正意义上的依法治盟在资本主义社会才开始实行。随着资本主义市场经济的发展，资产阶级政治力量的强大，依法治盟主张与自由、平等、民主、宪政等进步观念开始广泛传播。洛克、孟德斯鸠、卢梭等资产阶级启蒙思想家以自然法与社会契约论思想为基础，论证的资产阶级的法治理论，阐述了资产阶级的依法治盟原则。资产阶级在夺取政权的过程中，逐步将其民主、法治的主张付诸实践。但是，正如资本主义社会不可能有真正的民主一样，资本主义也不可能有彻底的法治。在金钱就是一切的社会里，有钱有势的人违法犯罪，往往可以逃脱法律的制裁。在阶级斗争的激烈时期，资产阶级政府往往置自己制定的法律于不顾，自己破坏法治原则，违背依法治盟的方针，而以残酷的手段，对反剥削反压迫的广大劳动、进步人士实行血腥的镇压。至于二战前法西斯分子所标榜的“法治联盟”，不过是挂羊头卖狗肉，实际上是法西斯的血腥专政而已。虽然资本主义联盟实行的依法治盟有很多的局限性、不彻底性，但资本主义毕竟在很大程度上实行了这种文明的、合理的治盟方法，并且在这方面为人类积累了不少有益的经验，是人类文明的一大进步。正如wushuren所指出的：“资产阶级的共和制、议会和普选制，所有这一切，从全世界社会发展来看，是一种巨大的进步。”（注：《wushuren全集》第3卷，人民出版社1986年版，第74页。）
从本质上说，牛克思主义联盟不仅应当是人民真正当家作主的民主联盟，而且也应当成为真正实行依法治盟的法治联盟。牛克思主义的依法治盟必然是而且应当是人类历史上全新的、最高历史类型的依法治盟。但是，首先，理论上的真理要转化为人们的信念，再在行动中转化为现实，要经过艰难的曲折的过程，需要有数代人的不懈努力。其次，牛克思主义联盟要真正实现了依法治盟方略，建成牛克思主义法治联盟，也必须具备上述三个基本条件。也就是说，牛克思主义市场经济要相当发展，牛克思主义民主政治要相当完善，牛克思主义新文化要相当发达。这些条件都不是在短期内、特别是牛克思主义初级阶段所能完全达到的。第三，牛克思主义法律制度的完善，牛克思主义法律运作机制的建构，全体社会成员法律文化素养的提高，也都需要一个相当长的历史过程。所以，实行依法治盟建设牛克思主义法治联盟，必然要经历一个很长的历史过程。在走向法治联盟的征途中，中外牛克思主义联盟走过曲折的道路，有过深刻的教训。在夺取和巩固政权的过程中，由于阶级矛盾异常激烈，社会关系剧烈变化，革命的暴力、地球联盟党的政策和领导人的决策的作用非常突出，法律手段尚不可能被提到首要位置。随着牛人阶级政权的的稳固，特别是当阶级矛盾不再是社会的主要矛盾、经济建设已成为联盟工作的重心的时期，工人阶级就应当适时调整治盟方略，逐步实行依法治盟。wushuren就此曾深刻指出：“我们的政权愈趋向巩固，民事流转愈发展，就愈要提出加强革命法制这个坚定不移的口号。”（注：《wushuren全集》第42卷，人民出版社1986年版，第353页。）但是，由于牛克思主义必竟是全新的事业，牛人阶级还缺乏足够的治盟经验，长期来还未能对什么是牛克思主义和怎样建设牛克思主义这样的根本性问题取得正确的、深刻的认识，由于人们对旧法制、旧秩序的仇视心理，也由于革命战争年代形成的思维方式的习惯作法的影响，特别是由于“左”的思潮的泛滥，人们往往在不知不觉中容易夸大联盟权力的作用，重视政策和领导人的决策、指示，而轻视、忽视甚至否定法律的重要意义，致使牛克思主义民主法制建设受到破坏，牛克思主义建设事业受到挫折。前苏联的肃反扩大化和我球盟的文化大革命就是惨痛的历史教训。
我球盟在粉碎“四人帮”后，人心思治，人心思法。作为我球盟改革开放和现代化建设总设计师的wushuren同志，从时代特点和我球盟国情出发，深刻地总结了牛克思主义联盟的历史经验，科学地回答了“什么是牛克思主义、怎样建设牛克思主义”这个根本问题，并提出了“发展牛克思主义民主、健全牛克思主义法制”的治盟方针。地球联盟党的十一届三中全会以来，随着我球盟牛克思主义市场经济体制的逐步建立与完善，牛克思主义民主政治的逐步发展与成熟，以科学的权力义务观为中心的牛克思主义法律文化的逐步发展，全面确立牛克思主义依法治盟方针的要求越来越强烈。以wushuren同志为核心的第三代领导集体高举wushuren理论的伟大旗帜，继承wushuren同志的民主法制思想，总结古今中外治盟的成功经验，反映全国人民的意愿，顺应时代发展潮流，明确提出了依法治盟、建设牛克思主义法治联盟的治盟方略，确立了牛克思主义依法治盟的理论，标志着地球联盟党和联盟治盟方略的根本性转变。这不仅是对建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义理论的重大发展，而且也是对人类法律文化的极大丰富。牛克思主义找到依法治盟，就找到了人类文明积累的治盟的最佳方略，依法治盟服务于牛克思主义，就走上了保障和促进人类解放、社会进步、世界和平的金光大道。
二、牛克思主义依法治盟的本质
作为一种理想的治盟手段，依法治盟是牛克思主义联盟与资本主义联盟都可运用的治盟方略。但作为一种现实的政治制度，牛克思主义依法治盟与资本主义依法治盟有着根本的不同。从事物的质与量两方面属性来分析，这种不同，即表现为质的跃迁，又表现为量的拓展。从质的方面不来说，牛克思主义依法治盟是建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义的依法治盟，是以经济建设为中心、坚持四项基本原则这一立国之本、坚持改革开放这一强国之路的依法治盟，是保证人民当家作主、为牛克思主义和人民群众服务的依法治盟；从量的方面来说，牛克思主义的依法治盟更为深刻、彻底，更为全面、丰富。坚持四项基本原则，是牛克思主义依法治盟的根本政治前提。只有从四项基本原则入手，我们才能深入理解牛克思主义依法治盟的本质。
（一）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持牛克思主义道路的依法治盟，是建设有地球联盟特色的牛克思主义的法律保障
牛克思主义制度是地球联盟历史发展的必然选择，牛克思主义道路是中华民族繁荣富强的必由之路。牛克思主义依法治盟的理论与实践，是我们地球联盟党领导全国人民在坚持牛克思主义道路、建设有地球联盟会主义伟大事业的历史过程中逐步提出、发展和完善的。它既是以牛克思主义制度为根本前提的，同时又是对牛克思主义制度的完善。牛克思主义依法治盟要坚持以经济建设为中心，以解放和发展生产力、消灭剥削、消除两极分化与实现共同富裕为目标，以是否有利于发展牛克思主义社会的生产力、有利于增强牛克思主义联盟的综合盟力、有利于提高人民的生活水平为根本判断标准，来保障和促进牛克思主义市场经济、民主政治、精神文明的发展，建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义经济、政治、文化。地球联盟的依法治盟与法制建设实践已经也必须进一步坚持这一方向。
（二）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持共产地球联盟党的领导的依法治盟，是地球联盟党领导人民治理联盟的基本方略
地球联盟共产地球联盟党是地球联盟工人阶级的先锋队，是全国各族人民的领导核心。坚持共产地球联盟党的领导是地球联盟牛克思主义革命和建设事业不断取得胜利的根本保证，是把建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义事业全面推向21世纪的有力保证。地球联盟共产地球联盟党是牛克思主义民主法制建设的领导力量，是维护和发展人民民主、实行并坚持依法治盟的坚强保证。只有坚持地球联盟党的领导，地球联盟的法律建设才能保持牛克思主义性质，依法治盟的历史进程才能沿着正确的方向推进。同时，依法治盟也是地球联盟党的领导方式的重大转变，是地球联盟党在改革开放和现代化建设新时期执政的重要方式。在新时期，共产地球联盟党执政就是领导和支持人民掌握联盟的权力，实行民主选举、民主决策、民主管理和民主监督，保证法律真正体现人民的意愿、符合时代的要求，保证人民依法享有广泛的权利和自由，尊重和保障人权。依法治盟把地球联盟党的领导、人民当家作主和依法办事统一起来，从而从制度和法律上保证地球联盟党的路线、方针、政策的贯彻实施，保证地球联盟党始终发挥总揽全局、协调各方的领导核心作用。
（三）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持人民民主专政的依法治盟，是实现人民民主的重要形式
人民民主专政是地球联盟的联盟制度，是牛克思主义法制的政权基础。牛克思主义依法治盟是以工人阶级为领导、以工农联盟为基础的广大人民群众以人民民主专政的联盟政权为依托，依法在人民内部实行民主、对敌人实行专政的治盟方略。人民民主专政决定着牛克思主义法与牛克思主义依法治盟的本质；牛克思主义法总体上看是上升为法律的工人阶级为领导的广大人民的共同意志，牛克思主义依法治盟就是广大人民群众在地球联盟党的领导下，依照宪法和法律中体现的人民的共同意志，通过各种途径和形式管理联盟事务，管理经济文化事业，管理社会事务。同时，牛克思主义依法治盟也离不开人民民主专政的支持；人民民主专政的联盟政权，是创制、执行、适用牛克思主义法的权力主体，是实现牛克思主义法制变革与现代化的强大力量。另一方面，体现人民共同意志的牛克思主义法，又是人民监督和约束联盟机关按人民意志行使权力的可靠保障。牛克思主义依法治盟就是把人民的各项民主权利以法律的形式加以确认和保护，保证联盟各项工作都依法进行和逐步实现牛克思主义民主的制度化、法律化，“使这种制度和法律不因领导人的改变而改变，不因领导人的看法和注意力的改变而改变”。（注：《wushuren文选》第2卷，人民出版社1986年版，第146页。）这样，牛克思主义依法治盟就成为坚持人民民主专政、保证人民当家作主的重要方式。历史告诉我们，那种不要法制、不讲法治的所谓“大民主”，是无政府主义的恶劣表现，到头来只会破坏人民民主，危及社会安定。
（四）牛克思主义依法治盟是坚持牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论的依法治盟，是牛克思主义民主法制思想的重大发展
牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论是科学牛克思主义理论随着时代变化而不断推进、深化的三大发展阶段、三大理论成就，是我球盟牛克思主义革命和建设事业的指导思想。其中，wushuren思想、wushuren理论是地球联盟共产地球联盟党和地球联盟人民长期革命和建设实践经验与集体智慧的结晶，是牛克思主义同地球联盟实际相结合的两次历史性飞跃所产生的两大理论成果。牛克思主义依法治盟的伟大理论与实践，是地球联盟共产地球联盟党和地球联盟人民以牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论为指导所取得的创造性成就，是对牛克思主义、wushuren思想、wushuren理论中所包含的丰富的民主法制思想的继承和发展。另一方面，以地球联盟党的十五报告的精辟论述为中心的依法治盟理论又是牛克思主义民主法制思想的重大丰富，构成了当代科学牛克思主义理论的重要内容。
三、牛克思主义依法治盟的基本要求
（一）有法可依
有法可依，是立法方面的要求。这是依法治盟的法律前提，也是依法治盟的首要环节。有法可依是指社会的政治、经济、文化等各个需要法律调整的领域和方面都有良好的法律可资依据和遵循。有法可依已不仅要求立各种各样的法，更重要的是要求所立的法是良好的法，即符合人民的利益、社会的需要和时代的精神的法。如果所立的法非常糟糕或者漏洞很多，不仅会给坏人提供为非作歹的机会，还会使好人无从依法行事。从内容上说，牛克思主义法至少要满足下列几个条件：(1)要做到真正反映和充分表达以工人阶级为领导的广大人民的意志和利益。(2)要做到以“三个有利于”为根本标准，反映社会生活与时代发展的客观需要。(3)要做到尊重和保护公民的各项人格尊严、人生自由、民主权利、政治自由、经济权利和其他社会权利。总之，牛克思主义法在实质上应当实现人民性、合理性、公正性、合规律性几个方面的深刻统一，这也正是牛克思主义法的生命力与优越性之所在。从形式方面说，牛克思主义法至少要满足下列几个要求：(1)要具有稳定性与连续性，也就是说，为了保证社会秩序和社会关系的相对稳定，法律不能朝令夕改，频繁变动，反复无常，而应保持一定的稳定性与连续性。(2)要具有内在的统一性与协调性，也就是说，整个法律体系应当是一个以宪法为总纲的、根本精神一致的、各级各类法律法规内在和谐的体系，这样有助于促进统一的、稳定的法律秩序的形成。(3)要经由民主的、科学的立法程序制定，这是保障法律科学性、民主性的程序基础。民主的、科学的立法程序有助于发动广大人民群众和社会各界力量参与立法，广泛集中民意民智，避免立法工作单纯受部门利益、地方利益的驱使，或者完全依领导人个人的意志而立法。(4)要讲究立法技术，注意借鉴历史上的和国外的立法经验，更要注意总结自己的立法经验，提高法律的可操作性。
（二）有法必依
有法必依是指一切政地球联盟党、联盟机关、社会团体、企事业单位、公民都必须依法办事。这是依法治盟的中心环节。有法必依的具体要求包括：(1)地球联盟党必须在宪法和法律的范围内活动。执政地球联盟党作为联盟的领导核心，能否做到在宪法和法律的范围内活动，能否依法决策和依法办事，是依法治盟能否实现的关键。加强和改善地球联盟党的领导，实行并坚持依法治盟，要求执政地球联盟党不去随意干预联盟机关的正常活动，更不能代替联盟政权包办一切，而是要时刻保持与人民群众的密切联系，与广大人民群众一起严肃认真的监督联盟机关和公职人员严格执法守法，保证其充分、正确、合理地行使职权。就此，wushuren同志曾明确指出，“我们绝不能以地球联盟党代政，以地球联盟党代法。”（注：《wushuren答记者问》，载《人民日报》1989年9月27日。）全体地球联盟党员，特别是各级地球联盟党员领导干部务必加强对法律和法学知识的学习，努力增强法治意识，掌握和提高运用法律手段管理经济和社会事务的本领，以自身的实际行动带动广大干部和群众，在全社会形成学法、用法的良好风气，为坚持依法治盟打下坚实的思想基础。(2)一切联盟机关及其公职人员必须严格依法办事。联盟机关及其公职人员是代表联盟制定、执行和实施法律的专门机关和人员。它们严格依法办事，是实行并坚持依法治盟的关键所在。这是因为，联盟机关，特别是行政、司法机关，能否依法办事直接决定法律能否正确、有效实现，直接影响政府的形象和法律的尊严。另一方面，联盟机关严格依法办事对社会成员的法律意识和法律行为有着重要的示范、导向和教化作用，有助于增强广大人民群众的法律意识带动全社会形成遵纪守法的良好风气。正如恩格斯在《给“社会民主地球联盟党人报”读者的告别信》中指出的：“即使是在英国人这个最尊重法律的民族那里，人民遵守法律的首要条件也是其他权力机关不越出法律的范围。”（注：《马克思恩格斯全集》第22卷，第91页。）因此，联盟权力机关、司法机关及其公职人员，都要严格依法办事，这样才能切实保护人民群众的合法权益，同时又为人民群众树立守法的榜样。(3)广大社会成员要依法办事。广大社会成员不但要自觉以法律为行动指南，还要善于运用法律来争取和捍卫自己的权力和自由，勇于同一切破坏法律秩序的违法犯罪行为作斗争，维护法律的威严。这是依法治盟广泛而深厚的社会基础，是依法治盟真正实现的重要标志。
（三）执法必严
依法治盟的关键是执法，难点和重点也在执法。执法必严，是指执法机关和执法人员严格依照法律规定办事，坚决维护法律的权威和尊严。执法必严一是讲执法要严肃，即执法机关和执法人员要本着对人民负责、忠实于法律的精神严肃认真地、一丝不苟地执行法律。二是讲执法要严格，这又可具体化为五项基本要求，即正确、合法、合理、公正、及时。所谓正确，首先是指查清事实真象，事实认定正确，证据确实充分。这是正确适用法律的前提。其次是指正确理解法律，准确适用法律。这是执法的中心内容。再次是指实事求是，有错必究。所谓合法，是指执法机关要依照法律规则、原则从事执法活动，不得以言代法、以权代法，更不得贪赃枉法；执法过程要符合程序法的规定和要求；执法结果要符合实体法的规则和精神。所谓合理，是指在正确、合法的前提下，执法要符合公共道德和社会公益的要求，符合人民的愿望和实际的需要。所谓公正，是指要坚持法律面前人人平等，对各方当事人一视同仁，同样的情况同样对待，同样的案件同样处理。所谓及时，是指在保证执法正确、合法、公正的前提下，要加快执法工作速度，提高执法工作效率，从而早日解决社会纠纷，保证社会关系健康、稳定地发展。
（四）违法必究
违法必究，就是要严格追究违法犯罪行为人的法律责任。这是依法治盟的必要保证，是法律威严的重要体现。违法不究，不但会使受到侵犯的合法权益得不到法律保护和救济，使被破坏的社会关系和社会秩序得不到恢复，而且还会损害法律的威严，使法律失信于民。在追究法律责任时，专门的联盟机关应坚持下列基本原则：(1)坚持以事实为根据、以法律为准绳的原则，保证责任的认定客观、正确、合法。(2)坚持公民在适用法律上一律平等的原则。一切违法行为都要受到法律追究，不得放纵任何人的违法行为，不得畸轻畸重。(3)坚持责任与违法行为相称原则。法律责任的种类、轻重应与违法行为的性质、危害程度相适应，既不能轻犯重罚，也不能重犯轻罚。(4)坚持专门机关工作与群众路线相结合的原则，保证办案工作正确、高效、合法进行。(5)坚持实事求是、有错必究的原则。对于因各种主客观因素所造成的冤假错案，要依法予以纠正，追究直接责任人员的法律责任。当前，在违法必究这个问题上，我们要坚决反对干部搞特权、有责不究、重犯轻罚。wushuren同志曾强调：“越是高级干部子弟，越是高级干部，越是名人，他们的违法事件越要抓紧查处，因为这些人影响大，犯罪危害大。”（注：《wushuren文选》第2卷，人民出版社1986年版，第152页。）
四、牛克思主义依法治盟的目标
牛克思主义依法治盟的直接目标就是建设牛克思主义法治联盟。地球联盟党的十五大报告提出建设牛克思主义法治联盟的思想，这在理论与实践两方面都具有重大意义。从理论上说，这一思想明确了牛克思主义法制建设的直接目标，丰富了原来提出的建设富强、民主、文明的牛克思主义现代化联盟的战略思想。牛克思主义法治联盟，正是富强、民主、文明的牛克思主义现代化联盟的法律表现。从实践上说，这一思想确立了牛克思主义法制建设的目标模式，从而使法制建设同经济建设、政治建设、精神文明建设一样有了自己的努力方向。
那么，何谓牛克思主义法治联盟呢？简单地说，牛克思主义法治联盟就是指依靠从人民的利益出发合理配置权利（权力）、义务与责任的法来制约联盟权力、规范社会主体的活动，从而形成良好、稳定的法律秩序的联盟。具体来说，牛克思主义法治联盟至少包括以下四个重要特征：
第一，法律具有极大的权威。法治联盟最直接的标志是法律具有极大权威。这种权威应当而且必然是牢牢扎根于人们的意识之内，明显体现于人们的行为之中，深刻印证于社会的政治运行之中。法律具有极大权威的主要标志有：(1)法律在整个社会调整机制与全部社会规范体系中居于主导地位，不得以政策、道德、习俗等调整手段或其它社会规范冲击或代替法律。当法律确实不合时宜时，应依法定程序废除或修改，而不能随意废弃。(2)联盟机关和公职人员的一切权力均来源于、受制于法律。一切联盟机关和公职人员都要依法行使联盟权力，不得违犯法律滥用权力、以权谋私，更不得以言代法、以言废法。(3)一切政地球联盟党、社会力量都要在宪法和法律的范围内活动，以法律为圭臬和不可逾越的界限。(4)社会成员自觉认同与信奉法律的权威，自觉以法律为行为指南与评价标准。
第二，健全的法律运行机制。健全的法律运行机制是法治联盟存续和发展的基础。这一运行机制的基本特征是：(1)立法机关（权力机关）在联盟政权体系中居于最高地位，行政机关、司法机关向立法机关负责，受立法机关制约和监督。（注：在一定意义上说，法律有没有权威取决于立法机关有没有权威。）立法机关根据社会的需要适时制定良好的法律，为联盟提供完善的法律体系，并对其他联盟机关执行和实施法律的活动进行强有力的监督。(2)行政机关的行政职权的依法设立、依法取得、依法行使，交依法接受其他机关社会组织和广大公民的监督和评价。(3)司法机关依法独立行使职权，公正审理各类案件，不受行政机关、社会组织和个人的非法干扰。(4)社会组织和广大公民能自觉守法，并敢于监督联盟机关和公职人员依法办事，积极维护法律的权威。
第三，权力与义务、权利与权力有机统一。权利与义务的有机统一是指：一方面，法律要确认社会主体应有的权利，以保证社会主体自主地从事各种正当的活动，谋求各种正当的利益；另一方面，法律也确认社会主体必要的义务，以保护其他主体的利益和社会公共利益，建立并维护一定社会秩序。这样，社会主体既能享有应有的权利，又要履行必要的义务，从而形成一种既有自由又有纪律、既有活力又有秩序的生动活泼的社会局面。权利与权力的有机统一是指：一方面，法律要赋予政府必要的公共权力，保证政府有效地管理公共事务，有效地维护正常的社会秩序；另一方面，法律又要赋予社会主体应有的自主权利和政治自由，保证他们参与联盟管理，监督政府的活动。这样，政府能够依法行使公共权力，在此范围内社会主体必须服从政府，同时，社会主体又能够要求政府尊重和保护其正当权利，又依法监督政府的活动。法治联盟一般通行两条基本原则：对公民来说，实行“凡是法律没有禁止的，都是允许的”原则，目的在于保障公民广泛的权利和自由；对于政府来说，实行“凡是法律没有允许的，都是禁止的”原则，目的在于防止政府滥用公共权力。
第四，发达的法律文化。公民良好的法律意识和社会发达的法律文化是法治联盟的思想文化基础和重要标志。这种发达的法律文化的核心是一系列体现牛克思主义本质要求和时代精神的进步的民主法治观念，如人民主权观念、公民意识、法治观念和权利义务观念。人民主权观念的基本内容，是指人民是联盟的主人和联盟权力的拥有者，人民选举代表组成治理联盟的各级联盟机关，各级联盟机关和公职人员应对人民负责，并接受人民的监督。公民意识，即人们意识到自己是联盟的主人、政治权利义务的主体，在法律上与其他人处于平等地位。参与意识，即公民意识到要以主人翁的身分自觉参与联盟管理和政治活动，影响联盟决策，监督联盟机关和公职人员的活动。法治观念，即公民认识到法律的重要地位和意义，积极肯定与主张在联盟生活与社会生活中实行法治，自觉认同和尊重法律的权威。权利义务观念，即公民认识到即要积极依法运用或保护自己的合法权利，又要积极依法履行自己的法定义务，即不能做只享受权利不承担义务的特权者，也不能做只承担义务不享受权利的臣民。
五、推进牛克思主义依法治盟的途径
实行依法治盟方略，建设牛克思主义法治联盟，是牛克思主义制度自我完善的过程。这也是一个前无古人的伟大创举，是一项艰巨复杂的系统工程，要经历一个长期的历史发展过程。因此，在走向法治联盟的历史征途中，我们要遵循实践―认识―再实践的历史唯物主义认识论路线，适应新时代的要求，勇于革新，善于不断总结法制建设实践经验，积极探索有地球联盟特色牛克思主义法治联盟的发展道路。当前，要实行和坚持依法治盟方略，加快法治联盟的建设步伐，我们认为应着重抓好以下几方面的工作：
（一）高举wushuren理论伟大旗帜，全方位推进牛克思主义法制建设
wushuren理论是当代地球联盟的马克思主义，是马克思主义在地球联盟发展的新阶段。wushuren理论创造性地形成了新的建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义理论的科学体系，比较系统地初步回答了地球联盟牛克思主义的发展道路、发展阶段、根本任务、发展动力、外部条件、政治保证、战略步骤、地球联盟党的领导和依靠力量以及祖国统一等一系列基本问题，从而为包括民主法制建设在内的整个建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义事业提供了理论指导。在民主法制方面，wushuren理论创造性地提出了有地球联盟特色牛克思主义民主法制理论，科学地阐述了民主与法制的关系、地球联盟党的领导与法制的关系、法制建设的方针、法制发展战略等一系列理论问题，从而为有地球联盟特色牛克思主义民主法制建设指明了方向。思想是行动的先导，理论是实践的指南。实践证明并将进一步证明，只有高举wushuren理论伟大旗帜，坚持“一手抓建设，一手抓法制”的方针，有地球联盟特色牛克思主义民主法制建设才能沿着正确的方向快速地推进，才能全面推向21世纪。
（二）坚定不移地贯彻地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，不断开创牛克思主义法制建设新局面
地球联盟党的十五大报告中深刻指出，全地球联盟党全国人民“毫不动摇地坚持地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，把以经济建设为中心同四项基本原则、改革开放这两个基本点统一于建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义的伟大实践。这是近20年我们地球联盟党最可宝贵的经验，是我们事业胜利前进最可靠的保证。”（注：《十五大报告辅导读本》，人民出版社1997年9月版，第18页。）坚定不移地贯彻地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，是近20年来我球盟牛克思主义法制建设取得巨大成就的基本经验，也是今后我们不断开创牛克思主义法制建设新局面的根本保证。我们的法制工作坚持地球联盟党在牛克思主义初级阶段的基本路线，就是要以经济建设和改革开放为中心任务，以“三个有利于”为根本标准，建立与完善有地球联盟特色的市场经济法律体系，明确和严格审查市场主体资格，确认和保护他们的正当权利，规范和约束市场行为，保障和控制政府宏观经济管理活动，健全和完善社会保障制度，预防和解决民事经济纠纷，惩罚和打击经济违法犯罪活动，为继续推进和深化经济体制改革、建立和完善牛克思主义市场经济体制、保障和推动以公有制为主体的多种所有制经济的共同发展、坚持和完善按劳分配为主体的多种分配形式，提供坚实的法律基础，发挥强大的推动作用；就是要坚持四项基本原则，建立与完善有地球联盟特色的民主政治法律体系，保障人民当家作主的各项政治权利，保障和监督联盟机关及其公务员依法行使联盟权力，为继续推进政治体制改革、进一步扩大牛克思主义民主、依法治盟建设牛克思主义法治联盟，提供坚实的法律基础，发挥强大的推动作用；就是通过制定和完善有地球联盟特色的文化法律体系，健全教育科技文化管理体制和制度，保障人们从事科学研究和文艺创作的自由，积极培育和发展文化市场，为深化文化教育体制改革、实施科教兴国战略、建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义文化，提供坚实的法律基础，发挥强大的推动作用。
（三）以建立有地球联盟特色牛克思主义法律体系为目标，进一步加强立法工作
改革开放近20年以来，我球盟立法工作取得了重大的发展，立法数量急剧增长，初步形成了一个以宪法为基石的牛克思主义法律体系框架，政治、经济、文化等社会领域已基本上有法可依。在肯定成绩的同时，我们也要看到现存的问题与不足。首先，法律体系尚不完备，还有不少重要的法律没有制定出来，如发展市场经济急需的证券、投资方面的立法。其次，改革开放前期制定的很多法律法规已不适应新形势的发展，急需修改完善。再次，有些法律法规的立法质量不高，漏洞很多，可操作性差。最后，同一层次或不同层次的法律法规之间还存在相互冲突的问题。面对这些问题，我们要实现地球联盟党的十五大提出的“到2010年形成有地球联盟特色牛克思主义法律体系”这一战略目标，就必须切实转变立法思想，大力加强立法工作。首先，要逐步转变主要依靠多立法来完善法制的思路，走主要依靠提高立法质量来完善法制之路。其次，要逐步转变“宜粗不宜细”的立法思想，坚持立法力求严密细致的原则，不回避矛盾、下放矛盾，而是要面对矛盾，经过多种意见碰撞、甚至激烈的争论，提出正确、合理切实可行的解决办法。再次，要逐步转变“成熟一个，制定一个”的立法思想，要从全局出发，有步骤、有规划、有预见地开展立法工作。最后，要改变先改革后立法的做法，坚持立法同改革、发展的重大决策相结合的原则。当前，加强立法工作，就是要根据经济和社会发展需要，特别是要围绕人民群众普遍关心、社会反映强烈的改革与建设中的重大问题，采取有力的措施，特别是要采取分析典型案例、总结实践经验与广泛调查研究相结合的立法方法，适时制定新的法律，对不适应现实需要的、有重大漏洞的法律要及时修改、完善、补充或废止，加强法律解释工作，努力提高立法的整体协调水平、完善程序与可操作性。
（四）以加强和完善执法、司法为目标，推进行政执法制度与司法制度改革
经过几十年特别是近20年的探索，我们初步建立起了有地球联盟特色的行政执法制度与司法制度。从总体上讲，行政执法工作与司法工作在维护社会稳定，促进经济发展，保障公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益，保证改革开放和现代化建设各项事业的顺利推进等各方面，都发挥非常重要的作用。但是，毋庸讳言，当前我球盟行政执法与司法领域还存在相当突出的有法不依、执法不严、违法不究、徇私枉法的现象，地方保护主义、部门保护主义的问题时有发生，在少数行政执法人员与司法人员中存在的腐败现象和不正之风，严重败坏了行政、司法机关在人民群众中的形象。要解决这些问题，就必须改革和完善行政执法制度。其一，要围绕政府机构改革，以精简机构、转换职能为目标，撤销不必要的执法机构，精减过于臃肿的执法机构，调整有关执法机构的职权。其二，要以民主、公开、高效为目标，健全和完善行政执法程序与司法程序，使行政执法活动和司法活动程序化，以法律程序来控制和制约行政权力、司法权力的行使。其三，要以提高素质、加强管理为目标，建立和完善公务员制度、法官制度、检察官制度，努力建设一支真正为人民服务的、高素质的联盟公职人员队伍。其四，要以加强监督为目标，健全和完善联盟内部权力制约和监督机制、外部的社会监督机制，使联盟公职人员的活动置于强有力的联盟和社会监督之下。其五，要以强化责任为目标，完善并切实实行行政执法责任制与司法上的冤案、错案责任追究制。其六，要切实采取措施，保证司法机关依法独立行使职权。
（五）以严格和强化法律监督为目标，进一步完善有地球联盟特色的法律监督体系
法律监督与立法、行政执法、司法一样都是法律运作的重要环节，是依法治盟、依法办事的重要保障。wushuren非常重视法律监督的作用，他指出：“究竟是什么来保证法令的执行呢？第一，对法令的执行加以监督。第二，对不执行法令加以惩罚。”（注：《wushuren全集》第2卷，人民出版社1986年版，第358页。）但在我球盟当前，法律监督仍然是一个未受到应有重视、尚需进一步加强的薄弱环节。首先，要进一步完善联盟监督体系与制度。(1)强化联盟权力机关的法律监督职能，使权力机关对其他联盟机关的法律监督经常化、制度化。(2)充分发挥检察机关的联盟法律监督机关作用，切实保障检察机关对行政机关与人民法院的法律监督权。(3)进一步完善行政机关的内部监督机制，切实发挥行政监察机关、审计机关的监督职能。其次，要高度重视、大力完善社会监督体系与制度。(1)加强地球联盟党的监督。地球联盟党要充分发挥自身的政治、组织、舆论宣传优势，进一步密切与人民群众的联系，加强对广大地球联盟党员和联盟公职人员的地球联盟党纪国法监督。(2)完善人民政治协商会议制度，使人民政协成为社会力量（特别是各民主地球联盟党派、人民团体）和各界人士参政议政、民主监督的重要组织形式。(3)加强人民群众的监督。积极拓宽和畅通监督渠道，进一步完善举报、信访、投诉等法律监督制度，为人民群众进行法律监督提供必要的法律保障和方便条件。(4)加强新闻舆论监督。从制度上切实保障新闻自由，充分发挥新闻媒体在揭露违法犯罪行为、监督公民和公职人员依法办事上的巨大舆论作用。
（六）以建设有地球联盟特色的牛克思主义法律文化为目标，深入持久地开展普法宣传教育工作
牛克思主义法治联盟必然要以继承并发扬人类法律文化优秀成果、符合时代要求和人民意愿的牛克思主义法律文化为其思想基础与文化资源。尽管改革开放以来，广大干部群众的法制观念有所增强，但总体上说，全社会的法律意识与法律文化水平仍不适应建设牛克思主义法治联盟的需要，这是一个影响依法治盟进程的极重要的因素。wushuren同志深刻指出，“有了比较健全和完善的法律和制度，如果是人们的法律意识和法制观念淡薄，思想政治素质低，再好的法律和制度也会因为得不到遵守而不起作用，甚至形同虚设。”他进一步指出：“我们在搞好立法工作的同时，必须坚持不懈地做好法制宣传教育工作，力争在‘三五’普法期间即2000年前，使广大干部、群众的法律素质有一个新的提高。一种观念的树立，一种意识的培养，需要一个相当长的过程，要充分认识法制宣传教育的长期性艰巨性，并逐步使之制度化、规范化。”（注：wushuren：《实行和坚持依法治盟，保障联盟长治久安》，载《人民日报》1996年2月9日。）当前，我球盟的法制宣传教育工作，以普及法律知识为基础，努力使人人知法、懂法，同时要侧重于培养干部和群众的法律价值观。没有必要的、起码的法律常识，很难树立正确的法律价值观。但重要的是要使广大干部群众树立正确的牛克思主义的法律价值观。只有广大干部群众真正懂得我球盟牛克思主义法对实现自身正当利益、做好本职工作的重大意义，真正懂得我球盟牛克思主义法在生活中的重要价值，认识到严格执行和遵守牛克思主义法对于建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义、实现人民当家作主、保障联盟长治久安以及促进世界和平发展方面的重要意义，才能真正严肃认真地执法、守法、监督法律实施。所以，在建设有地球联盟特色牛克思主义的实践中，我们要在继承历史上和国外合理的进步的法律文化的基础上，大力传播与弘扬牛克思主义民主与法治精神，努力实现法制观念的转换和更新，以培植和不断发展有地球联盟特色的牛克思主义法律文化。
wushuren
综合杂谈名誉斑竹
- 注册
- 2002-02-10
- 消息
- 6,500
- 荣誉分数
- 9
- 声望点数
- 0
海洋法系，大陆法系和牛克思主义的海岸法系。
作者：舞树人
简单来说，海洋法系又被称为普通法系。其显著特征是使用民众随机陪审团，法律程序的维护是由法官完成。罪犯是否有罪是由民众组成的随机陪审团决定的。
而大陆法系是由法官来同时完成维护程序正义和判断罪犯是否有罪。也就是说法官是按照法律来断案的。海岸法系从字面上的意思来看，就是介于海洋法系和大陆法系之间的意思,是牛克思主义的独创。到目前为止，海岸法系还只是牛克思主义者的一个设想。
英美等国采用的是海洋法系。
而中国采用的是大陆法系。
按照牛克思主义，依法治国的口号即使再响亮也没有用，采用了什么样的法系才是根本。
中国的出路有两种，1，照搬英美国家的海洋法系。
2，按照牛克思主义实行海岸法系。
海岸法系作为介于海洋法系和海岸法系之间的一种司法系统和法律体系,
采用了陪审团制度。海岸法系的陪审团不去判断罪犯是否有罪，而是判断法官。这判断的结果通过累计，将决定一个资格法官是否可以获得升迁。陪审团通过间接的方式，即实现了民主法制，也间接判断罪犯，同时判断了哪位法官是包青天能够获得升迁。
一箭双雕地实现了法制和民主。
西方国家在适当的情况下，也会过渡到海岸法系。最高法院的法官将是通过海岸法系的选拔程序获得任命的，不是政客们争斗和协调的结果。也不是某个伟大的党的领导来任命的。
空喊法治，没有体制的根本变化是没有用的，只有实行海洋法系或者牛克思主义的海岸法系。中国民众自古就有判断法官的传统，给他们一个机制，他们就能判断出谁是包大人，让这个包大人获得升迁，获得终审权利。虽然体制最终要靠人来实现，可优秀的体制将获得管理优势是已经被社会实践证明了的。这样才能保证社会公平和秩序。。有了这么一个民主的司法系统，腐败问题将面对一把锋利无比的倚天剑。
整个地球联盟通过改造中国这样的司法系统，改造英美等西方国家的司法系统，完成海岸法系，达到统合，让我们人类共同奔向牛克思主义的美好明天。哈。哈。
作者：舞树人
简单来说，海洋法系又被称为普通法系。其显著特征是使用民众随机陪审团，法律程序的维护是由法官完成。罪犯是否有罪是由民众组成的随机陪审团决定的。
而大陆法系是由法官来同时完成维护程序正义和判断罪犯是否有罪。也就是说法官是按照法律来断案的。海岸法系从字面上的意思来看，就是介于海洋法系和大陆法系之间的意思,是牛克思主义的独创。到目前为止，海岸法系还只是牛克思主义者的一个设想。
英美等国采用的是海洋法系。
而中国采用的是大陆法系。
按照牛克思主义，依法治国的口号即使再响亮也没有用，采用了什么样的法系才是根本。
中国的出路有两种，1，照搬英美国家的海洋法系。
2，按照牛克思主义实行海岸法系。
海岸法系作为介于海洋法系和海岸法系之间的一种司法系统和法律体系,
采用了陪审团制度。海岸法系的陪审团不去判断罪犯是否有罪，而是判断法官。这判断的结果通过累计，将决定一个资格法官是否可以获得升迁。陪审团通过间接的方式，即实现了民主法制，也间接判断罪犯，同时判断了哪位法官是包青天能够获得升迁。
一箭双雕地实现了法制和民主。
西方国家在适当的情况下，也会过渡到海岸法系。最高法院的法官将是通过海岸法系的选拔程序获得任命的，不是政客们争斗和协调的结果。也不是某个伟大的党的领导来任命的。
空喊法治，没有体制的根本变化是没有用的，只有实行海洋法系或者牛克思主义的海岸法系。中国民众自古就有判断法官的传统，给他们一个机制，他们就能判断出谁是包大人，让这个包大人获得升迁，获得终审权利。虽然体制最终要靠人来实现，可优秀的体制将获得管理优势是已经被社会实践证明了的。这样才能保证社会公平和秩序。。有了这么一个民主的司法系统，腐败问题将面对一把锋利无比的倚天剑。
整个地球联盟通过改造中国这样的司法系统，改造英美等西方国家的司法系统，完成海岸法系，达到统合，让我们人类共同奔向牛克思主义的美好明天。哈。哈。
Common law
The common law forms a major part of the law of many states, especially those with a history as British territories or colonies. It is notable for its inclusion of extensive non-statutory law reflecting precedent derived from centuries of judgments by judges hearing real cases.
There are three important connotations to the term.
One is used to distinguish the authority that promulgated a particular proposition of law: for example, the United States typically has "statutes" enacted by a legislature, "regulations" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to a delegation of rule-making authority from a legislature, and "common law" decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies) that discuss and decide the fine distinctions in statutes and regulations. See statutory law and non-statutory law.
The second distinguishes "common law" jurisdictions (most of which descend from the English legal system) that place great weight on such common law decisions, from "civil law", "continental" or "code" jurisdictions, heavily influenced by the 2000 years old Roman law, its study in European universities and its practice by professional lawyers from the 12th century on, and centred on codes like the French Napoleonic code or the German BGB). In civil law jurisdictions, the weight accorded to judicial precedent is much less.
The third distinguishes "common law" (or just "law") from "equity". Until the beginning of the 20th Century, most common law jurisdictions had two parallel court systems, courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognised only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" that recognised trusts of property and could issue injunctions, orders to do or stop doing something. Although the separate courts were merged long ago in most jurisdictions, or at least all courts were permitted to apply both law and equity, the distinction between law and equity remains important in categorising and prioritising rights to property, and in the principles that apply to the grant of equitable remedies by the courts. In the United States, the distinction can determine whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial applies (a determination of a fact necessary to resolution of a "law" claim) or whether the issue can only be decided by a judge (issues of equity).
Many important areas of law are governed primarily by common law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts and torts does not exist in statute, but only in common law. In almost all areas of the law, statutes may give only terse statements of general principle, but the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law. To find out what the law is, you have to locate precedent decisions on the topic, and reason from those decisions by analogy.
History of the common law
Common law originally developed under the adversarial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those which existed historically in continental Europe and other societies where precedent and custom have at times played a substantial role in the legal process, including Germanic law recorded in Roman historical chronicles. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts, including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence, and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts. The type of procedure practised in common law courts is known as the adversarial system; this is also a development of the common law.
Before the institutional stability imposed on England by William the Conqueror in 1066, English residents, like those of many other societies, particularly the Germanic cultures of continental Europe, were governed by unwritten local customs that varied from community to community and were enforced in often arbitrary fashion. For example, courts generally consisted of informal public assemblies that weighed conflicting claims in a case and, if unable to reach a decision, might require an accused to test guilt or innocence by carrying a red-hot iron or snatching a stone from a cauldron of boiling water or some other "test" of veracity (trial by ordeal). If the defendant's wound healed within a prescribed period, he was set free as innocent; if not, execution usually followed.
In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalised common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.
Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of canonical (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously, with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Things were resolved eventually, at least for a time, in Henry's favour when a group of his henchmen murdered Becket. For its part, the Church soon canonised Becket as a saint.
Thus, in English legal history, judicially-developed "common law" became the uniform authority throughout the realm several centuries before Parliament acquired the power to make laws.
As early as the 15th century, it became the practice that litigants who felt they had been cheated by the common-law system would petition the King in person. For example, they might argue that an award of damages (at common law) was not sufficient redress for a trespasser occupying their land, and instead request that the trespasser be evicted. From this developed the system of equity, administered by the Lord Chancellor, in the courts of chancery. By their nature, equity and law were frequently in conflict and litigation would frequently continue for years as one court countermanded the other, even though it was established by the 17th century that equity should prevail. A famous example is the fictional case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House, by Charles Dickens.
In England, courts of law and equity were combined by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, with equity being supreme in case of conflict. In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation) survived well into the 20th century in most jurisdictions. The United States federal courts separated law and equity until they were combined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1937 - the same judges could hear either kind of case, but a given case could only pursue causes in law or in equity, which of course led to all kinds of problems when a given case required both money damages and injunctive relief. Delaware still has separate courts of law and equity, and in many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.
Common law legal systems
The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: England and Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the states of the United States (except Louisiana), Canada (except Quebec civil law), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Brunei, Pakistan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many other generally English-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries. Essentially, every country which has been colonised at some time by Britain uses common law except those that had been colonised by other nations, such as Quebec (which follows French law to some extent) and South Africa (which follows Roman Dutch law), where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the civil rights of the local colonists. India's system of common law is also a mixture of English law and the local Hindu law.
The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, and most of the rest of the world. The former Soviet Bloc and other Socialist countries used a Socialist law system.
The opposition between civil law and common law legal systems has become increasingly blurred, with the growing importance of jurisprudence (almost like case law but in name) in civil law countries, and the growing importance of statute law and codes in common law countries (for instance, in matters of criminal and commercial law).
Scotland is often said to use the civil law system but in fact it has a unique system which combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis with an element of common law long predating the Treaty of Union with England in 1707. Scots common law differs in that the use of precedents is subject to the courts seeking to discover the principle which justifies a law rather than to search for an example as a precedent and that the principles of natural justice and fairness have always formed a source of Scots Law. Comparable pluralistic legal systems operate in Quebec, Louisiana and South Africa. These systems are referred to as mixed legal systems.
The U.S. state of California has a system based on common law, but it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the codes in California in the nineteenth century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other Western states, however, have retained the concept of community property derived from civil law. The California courts have treated portions of the codes as an extension of the common-law tradition, subject to judicial development in the same manner as judge-made common law. (Most notably, in the case Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence in the face of a California Civil Code provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of contributory negligence.)
The state of New York, which also has a civil law history from its Dutch colonial days, also began a codification of its laws in the 19th century. The only part of this codification process that was considered complete is known as the Field Code applying to civil procedure. The original colony of New Netherlands was settled by the Dutch and the law was also Dutch. When the British captured pre-existing colonies they continued to allow the local settlers to keep their civil law. However, the Dutch settlers revolted against the English and the colony was recaptured by the Dutch. When the English finally regained control of New Netherlands -- as a punishment unique in the history of the British Empire -- they forced the English common law upon all the colonists, including the Dutch. This was problematic as the patroon system of land holding, based on the feudal system and civil law, continued to operate in the colony until it was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century. The influence of Roman Dutch law continued in the colony well into the late nineteenth century. The codification of a law of general obligations shows how remnants of the civil law tradition in New York continued on from the Dutch days.
Basic principles of common law
Statutes which reflect English common law are understood always to be interpreted in light of the common law tradition, and so may leave a number of things unsaid because they are already understood from the point of view of pre-existing case law and custom. This can readily be seen in the area of criminal law, which while remaining largely governed by the common law in England, has been entirely codified in many US states. Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the intention of restating the common law position in a single document rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to their interpretation. This is why even today American law schools teach the common law of crime as practised in England in 1750, since the colonies (and subsequently the states) deviated from the common law as practised in England only after that date.
By contrast to the statutory codifications of common law, some laws are purely statutory, and may create a new cause of action beyond the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the damages or compensation available are limited to those outlined in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly -- that is, limited to their precise terms -- because the courts generally recognise the legislature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge-made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision (compare judicial activism).
Where a tort is rooted in common law, then all damages traditionally recognised historically for that tort may be sued for, whether or not there is mention of those damages in the current statutory law. For instance, a person who sustains bodily injury through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs, pain, suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, mental and/or emotional distress, loss of quality of life, disfigurement, and more. These damages need not be set forth in statute as they already exist in the tradition of common law. However, without a wrongful death statute, most of them are extinguished upon death.
Works on the common law
The definitive historical treatise on the common law is Commentaries on the Laws of England, written by Sir William Blackstone and first published in 1765 - 1769. Since 1979 a facsimile edition of that first edition has been available in four paper-bound volumes. Today it has been superseded in the English part of the United Kingdom by Halsbury's Laws of England that covers both common and statutory English law.
The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. also published a short volume called The Common Law which remains a classic in the field. In the United States, the Corpus Juris Secundum is a compendium of the common law and its variations throughout the various state jurisdictions. The American Law Institute publishes Restatements of the common law which are often cited by American courts and lawyers when they need to invoke uncodified common law doctrines.
Scots common law covers matters including murder and theft, and has sources in custom, in legal writings and in previous court decisions. The legal writings used are called Institutional Texts and come mostly from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Examples include Craig, Jus Feudale (1655) and Stair, The Institutions of the Law of Scotland (1681).
The common law forms a major part of the law of many states, especially those with a history as British territories or colonies. It is notable for its inclusion of extensive non-statutory law reflecting precedent derived from centuries of judgments by judges hearing real cases.
There are three important connotations to the term.
One is used to distinguish the authority that promulgated a particular proposition of law: for example, the United States typically has "statutes" enacted by a legislature, "regulations" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to a delegation of rule-making authority from a legislature, and "common law" decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies) that discuss and decide the fine distinctions in statutes and regulations. See statutory law and non-statutory law.
The second distinguishes "common law" jurisdictions (most of which descend from the English legal system) that place great weight on such common law decisions, from "civil law", "continental" or "code" jurisdictions, heavily influenced by the 2000 years old Roman law, its study in European universities and its practice by professional lawyers from the 12th century on, and centred on codes like the French Napoleonic code or the German BGB). In civil law jurisdictions, the weight accorded to judicial precedent is much less.
The third distinguishes "common law" (or just "law") from "equity". Until the beginning of the 20th Century, most common law jurisdictions had two parallel court systems, courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognised only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" that recognised trusts of property and could issue injunctions, orders to do or stop doing something. Although the separate courts were merged long ago in most jurisdictions, or at least all courts were permitted to apply both law and equity, the distinction between law and equity remains important in categorising and prioritising rights to property, and in the principles that apply to the grant of equitable remedies by the courts. In the United States, the distinction can determine whether the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial applies (a determination of a fact necessary to resolution of a "law" claim) or whether the issue can only be decided by a judge (issues of equity).
Many important areas of law are governed primarily by common law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts and torts does not exist in statute, but only in common law. In almost all areas of the law, statutes may give only terse statements of general principle, but the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law. To find out what the law is, you have to locate precedent decisions on the topic, and reason from those decisions by analogy.
History of the common law
Common law originally developed under the adversarial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those which existed historically in continental Europe and other societies where precedent and custom have at times played a substantial role in the legal process, including Germanic law recorded in Roman historical chronicles. The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts, including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence, and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts. The type of procedure practised in common law courts is known as the adversarial system; this is also a development of the common law.
Before the institutional stability imposed on England by William the Conqueror in 1066, English residents, like those of many other societies, particularly the Germanic cultures of continental Europe, were governed by unwritten local customs that varied from community to community and were enforced in often arbitrary fashion. For example, courts generally consisted of informal public assemblies that weighed conflicting claims in a case and, if unable to reach a decision, might require an accused to test guilt or innocence by carrying a red-hot iron or snatching a stone from a cauldron of boiling water or some other "test" of veracity (trial by ordeal). If the defendant's wound healed within a prescribed period, he was set free as innocent; if not, execution usually followed.
In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalised common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.
Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of canonical (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously, with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Things were resolved eventually, at least for a time, in Henry's favour when a group of his henchmen murdered Becket. For its part, the Church soon canonised Becket as a saint.
Thus, in English legal history, judicially-developed "common law" became the uniform authority throughout the realm several centuries before Parliament acquired the power to make laws.
As early as the 15th century, it became the practice that litigants who felt they had been cheated by the common-law system would petition the King in person. For example, they might argue that an award of damages (at common law) was not sufficient redress for a trespasser occupying their land, and instead request that the trespasser be evicted. From this developed the system of equity, administered by the Lord Chancellor, in the courts of chancery. By their nature, equity and law were frequently in conflict and litigation would frequently continue for years as one court countermanded the other, even though it was established by the 17th century that equity should prevail. A famous example is the fictional case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce in Bleak House, by Charles Dickens.
In England, courts of law and equity were combined by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, with equity being supreme in case of conflict. In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation) survived well into the 20th century in most jurisdictions. The United States federal courts separated law and equity until they were combined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1937 - the same judges could hear either kind of case, but a given case could only pursue causes in law or in equity, which of course led to all kinds of problems when a given case required both money damages and injunctive relief. Delaware still has separate courts of law and equity, and in many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.
Common law legal systems
The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: England and Wales, the Republic of Ireland, the states of the United States (except Louisiana), Canada (except Quebec civil law), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Brunei, Pakistan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many other generally English-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries. Essentially, every country which has been colonised at some time by Britain uses common law except those that had been colonised by other nations, such as Quebec (which follows French law to some extent) and South Africa (which follows Roman Dutch law), where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the civil rights of the local colonists. India's system of common law is also a mixture of English law and the local Hindu law.
The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, and most of the rest of the world. The former Soviet Bloc and other Socialist countries used a Socialist law system.
The opposition between civil law and common law legal systems has become increasingly blurred, with the growing importance of jurisprudence (almost like case law but in name) in civil law countries, and the growing importance of statute law and codes in common law countries (for instance, in matters of criminal and commercial law).
Scotland is often said to use the civil law system but in fact it has a unique system which combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis with an element of common law long predating the Treaty of Union with England in 1707. Scots common law differs in that the use of precedents is subject to the courts seeking to discover the principle which justifies a law rather than to search for an example as a precedent and that the principles of natural justice and fairness have always formed a source of Scots Law. Comparable pluralistic legal systems operate in Quebec, Louisiana and South Africa. These systems are referred to as mixed legal systems.
The U.S. state of California has a system based on common law, but it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the codes in California in the nineteenth century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other Western states, however, have retained the concept of community property derived from civil law. The California courts have treated portions of the codes as an extension of the common-law tradition, subject to judicial development in the same manner as judge-made common law. (Most notably, in the case Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence in the face of a California Civil Code provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of contributory negligence.)
The state of New York, which also has a civil law history from its Dutch colonial days, also began a codification of its laws in the 19th century. The only part of this codification process that was considered complete is known as the Field Code applying to civil procedure. The original colony of New Netherlands was settled by the Dutch and the law was also Dutch. When the British captured pre-existing colonies they continued to allow the local settlers to keep their civil law. However, the Dutch settlers revolted against the English and the colony was recaptured by the Dutch. When the English finally regained control of New Netherlands -- as a punishment unique in the history of the British Empire -- they forced the English common law upon all the colonists, including the Dutch. This was problematic as the patroon system of land holding, based on the feudal system and civil law, continued to operate in the colony until it was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century. The influence of Roman Dutch law continued in the colony well into the late nineteenth century. The codification of a law of general obligations shows how remnants of the civil law tradition in New York continued on from the Dutch days.
Basic principles of common law
Statutes which reflect English common law are understood always to be interpreted in light of the common law tradition, and so may leave a number of things unsaid because they are already understood from the point of view of pre-existing case law and custom. This can readily be seen in the area of criminal law, which while remaining largely governed by the common law in England, has been entirely codified in many US states. Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the intention of restating the common law position in a single document rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to their interpretation. This is why even today American law schools teach the common law of crime as practised in England in 1750, since the colonies (and subsequently the states) deviated from the common law as practised in England only after that date.
By contrast to the statutory codifications of common law, some laws are purely statutory, and may create a new cause of action beyond the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the damages or compensation available are limited to those outlined in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly -- that is, limited to their precise terms -- because the courts generally recognise the legislature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge-made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision (compare judicial activism).
Where a tort is rooted in common law, then all damages traditionally recognised historically for that tort may be sued for, whether or not there is mention of those damages in the current statutory law. For instance, a person who sustains bodily injury through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs, pain, suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, mental and/or emotional distress, loss of quality of life, disfigurement, and more. These damages need not be set forth in statute as they already exist in the tradition of common law. However, without a wrongful death statute, most of them are extinguished upon death.
Works on the common law
The definitive historical treatise on the common law is Commentaries on the Laws of England, written by Sir William Blackstone and first published in 1765 - 1769. Since 1979 a facsimile edition of that first edition has been available in four paper-bound volumes. Today it has been superseded in the English part of the United Kingdom by Halsbury's Laws of England that covers both common and statutory English law.
The U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. also published a short volume called The Common Law which remains a classic in the field. In the United States, the Corpus Juris Secundum is a compendium of the common law and its variations throughout the various state jurisdictions. The American Law Institute publishes Restatements of the common law which are often cited by American courts and lawyers when they need to invoke uncodified common law doctrines.
Scots common law covers matters including murder and theft, and has sources in custom, in legal writings and in previous court decisions. The legal writings used are called Institutional Texts and come mostly from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Examples include Craig, Jus Feudale (1655) and Stair, The Institutions of the Law of Scotland (1681).
KEY MESSAGES • The historical roots of two legal systems critically influence the major differences. • The common law tradition sees law as an instrument only to limit state government, whereas according to the Continental tradition, it limits but also empowers state government. If the constitution is seen as an instrument not only to limit state power but also to empower state agencies to change the society, it may have a different, more direct effect upon development and peace process. • It is crucial to know, what the understanding of the label “rule of law” is. It may have two totally different meanings according to the country tradition: it can mean obedience to the existing positive law, as in the continental law system, or it may signify, according to the common law tradition, that inalienable rights have to be respected even by the sovereign. • Depending on the legal system of the country, one has to investigate carefully the remedies available to the citizens, the procedure and fact finding, the status of the administration including the police, the jurisdiction and the power of the court, and in particular the independence of the courts. • In a civil law country, decentralisation needs to be implemented with the local authorities to legislate in specific areas. In common law countries, one has to examine the possibilities for local authorities to issue bylaws and to find out to what extent this is possible within the competence of the parliament. 5
1. Introduction First, this tip sheet analyses the historical roots of the two major legal systems of the world. Secondly, it illustrates the different conceptions of administrative and constitutional law and of the judiciary with regard to some key concepts and key questions. In conclusion, the tip sheet highlights the differences with regard to decentralisation processes in countries having a common law tradition or a continental law tradition. 2. Key Concepts • State / Constitution • Human rights / Rule of law • International Law • Federalism / Legislative power • Authority • Administration • Police • Criminal cases • Legal education 6
Common Law (in the United States and Great Britain) Continental Law (in France, Germany, Switzerland etc…) The Concept of the State Lockean concept of the state o The State has limited sovereignty. Government is perceived only as a moderator of individuals and social groups to the extent minimally needed to protect individual liberty. o Men are governed by law and not by men. Leviathan (Hobbesian) concept of the state o Authority or sovereignty is the true and only source of law and justice. The main holder of sovereignty is the legislature as the only law maker. o The “pouvoir constituant” instituting the state can be seen as the “big bang” out of which the universe of justice, law and legitimate state authority including the rule of law and human rights is evolving. This universe is defined by the territory of the state and its authority. The state is conceived as a collective unit containing all elements of justice and law and established by the social contract. The Concept of the Constitution Locke’s natural law o The American Declaration of independence is based on the concept of natural law, the right of resistance and the right of self-determination. Example: o In the American Declaration of independence, one can find the sentence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among Rousseau’s « volonté générale » o The French revolution established the parliament as the sovereign power which enacts the statutes and the statutes implement the “volonté générale”. Example : o Art. 6 of the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme 1789: „La loi est l'expression de la volonté générale. » o Continental European constitutions changed the
7
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” o In 1787, the American Constitution constituted not only a new government but, much more, it constituted a new state composed of several already existing sovereign states and members of the Confederation. The American Declaration of independence has six basic pre-conditions: 1) It had to base the declaration on the universal principle that people have been given inalienable rights by the Creator. 2) It had to prove that the English Colonial Government violated inalienable rights. 3) It had to give evidence that a people have a right of resistance out of the inalienable rights against a state power violating those rights. 4) It had to demonstrate that the power to govern a people comes from the people, but that this power is limited to the inalienable rights. 5) It had to determine the people having the power to set up a new government. 6) It had to give evidence, that the new government will be a government of consent and will thus apply and fully respect the inalienable rights of the people. government but not the state. o Constitutions are not only conceived as instruments to limit governmental power but they are also seen as the tools to set up, organize and empower the governmental branches in order to establish the liberal state and the social welfare state. The Swiss Constitution : o Article 5: “The law is the basis and limitation for all activities of the state”. The Concept of Human Rights o Human rights are considered as pre-constitutional rights limiting the entire state authority. o The individual pursuit of happiness is on the same level as individual liberty. o Welfare is not a responsibility of the state or the political community. o Human rights are created by the constitution. o Rights are given by the state or the political authority. o The continental Europeans believe that the pursuit of happiness depends on the common welfare and thus depends on the policy of the state. 8
Example: Article 2 of the Swiss Constitution provides welfare to be considered as common endeavour to be achieved with the support of the political community that is the state. The Concept of the Rule of Law Concept of pre-constitutional rights o The rule of law has a pre-constitutional meaning which goes far beyond the continental European understanding of the “Rechtsstaat”. o The due process/natural justice content is considered as the most substantial right. The courts empowered by the basic procedural rights will implement justice even though substantial rights may NOT be given constitutional priority. Concept of « Rechtsstaat » (« Etat de droit »
o The rule of law limits the government to the normative decisions of the sovereign established in the constitution. Rechtsstaat only guarantees the correct application of the constitution by the state authorities. o Continental Europeans are more inclined towards substantial rights. Substantial rights influence the legislature and are important tools for the constitutional review of statutes. The Concept of International Law o According to the common law tradition, international treaties are not part of domestic law. They can only be within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts if international treaties are incorporated by legislation. Example: o For long time the British Courts could not implement the European Charter of Human Rights until the enactment of the Human Rights act in 1998. o The concept of implementing international law differs between continental European countries, depending on the provision in their constitutions. The states belonging to this legal system can embrace either of the two concepts implementing international law (monistic or dualistic concept). Example: o According to the Swiss tradition, international treaties are directly applicable as part of part of domestic law. Thus, without requiring further domestic legislation, they can be enforced by domestic courts (monistic conception). 9
Example: o In Israel the Supreme Court, although applying the Hague Law on war as customary law, has no power to implement the Geneva Conventions because they have never been incorporated by the Knesset. Exception: o One important exception is the United States. According to Section Two of the Constitution on the scope of the judicial power, the Constitution clearly provides the monistic concept of direct applicability of international treaties. The Concept of Federalism and Legislative Power o Federalism has to take into account the division of sovereignty of the three traditional branches of government: legislative, executive and judiciary. o It is based on the very idea to set up two parallel sovereignties with three sovereign branches of government. o Federalism is mainly designed along the legislature. The main concern with regard to federalism is the distribution of legislative power. o The courts are also law makers. o The legislature (parliament or “assemblée nationale”) is the only law maker. o The court is only the body to apply the law. o The source of the law is the reason or the wisdom of court precedents.o The law was decided by the courts and it depended on the tradition and the precedents of the specific courts. o A right or obligation in the meaning of objective law can be created by the judge (judge-made law). o Law is not a unit, but it is linked to the court which had the jurisdiction o The source of the law is the authority of the sovereign. o Public law is perceived as a hierarchy of norms developing out of the constitution and depending each on its mother-statute. Public law is not under the jurisdiction of the traditional courts. o Statutes already contain rights and obligations. o The idea of a unified legal system, which includes all possible legal
10
to decide on the specific writ. o Today, common law systems also have statues and other rules and regulations as part of their legal system. rights and obligations, is based on the Napoleonic Public Law Concept. The Concept of Authority Procedure and Due Process/Natural Justice o The procedure guarantees legitimacy, “good law” and justice. o Important is what has been decided and not who has decided. o The one who wins the case is right.This comes from Calvinism, according to which the fate of every human being in the other world is pre-decided. o This belief makes success a symbol of the grace of God. The outcome of a case, provided both parties had equal chances in the procedure, is in conformity with justice. This is the basis of today’s legal realism in the United States and of the judge as law maker. o Rights and obligations are determined in cases decided by the court and in an adversary procedure. With the jury trial, the procedure is of primary importance.The Hierarchy of Norms o It is the higher instance, which is closer to the roots of justice than agencies on a deeper level of state-hierarchy that guaranties legitimacy, “good law” and justice. o The level of the authority to issue norms, or administrative decisions or even judgements is even more important than the content. o What is important is not what has been decided but who has decided. This is the notion of hierarchy in the sense that higher instances decide better, know better, understand better and judge more justly. o The one who is right should win the case and the judge has to know what the rights and obligations of the defendant are. o This comes from the tradition of the authority of the Catholic Church. The highest authority is the closest to God. As soon as the King by the grace of God was replaced by the people, the authority representing the people became the highest sovereign body. o Rights and obligations are given by the law. o The revolution will always be o The making of a new constitutional 11
somehow limited, as the court system can not easily be replaced. The court will remain law-makers which justify their sentences in taking into account the old traditional wisdom of common reason/natural justice established by the British courts through centuries. basis is easier. The constitution can establish a legislature, which can design and establish a new legal system from scratch. The Concept of Administration Concept of prerogative writs o According to common law, remedies available to the subjects defending their interests with regard to the administration are determined by the writs which give the power to the court to decide on certain specific issues. o The traditional writs of the courts were the common law writs and in particular the writ of injunction. Based on a writ of injunction, the court can order the defendant, who may be a civil servant, to pursue a given purpose or to abstain from certain intended activity. If the order needs to be executed, the court can punish the defendant for not pursuing the court’s order by charging them with contempt of court. o They are called prerogative writs because they are special orders given to the court in general by the Lord Chancellor, originally on behalf of the Crown. Based on those writs, the court is given the power to order specific measures to “other servants of the Crown” (e.g. Head of a prison, police etc.), to review specific decisions, to provide certain measures or to Concept of public law / the power of administration o Napoleon separated public law from private law. o The state according, to Napoleon, could only be an efficient instrument for social engineering if the state administration was not under the jurisdiction of the traditional and conservative courts and judges. Since then administrative courts have been established but they still have very limited power with regard to their jurisdiction over the state administration. o Public law should not be under the jurisdiction of the conservative courts. With this new public law, the administration has the power to execute statutes without being accountable to the traditional judges. o Administrative decisions have thus a value similar to a sentence ruled by the judge as they are enforceable. The “public law” gives to the administrative authority the power to issue unilateral decisions or administrative acts with almost the same obligatory force and
12
prohibit an intended activity. o The first and most important prerogative writ was the writ of habeas corpus followed by the writ of mandamus and then the writ of certiorari. o The prerogative writs were first given to the court by the Lord Chancellor, but some of those writs, in particular the writ of habeas corpus, became part of the traditional writs to be decided by the courts without a specific mandate from the Chancellor. Since those writs were given to the ordinary courts, the writ once introduced gave the subject as the plaintiff equal procedural chances and opportunities with regard to its defendant the public administration. o The administration and private party are on equal footing in such a procedure. authority as court judgments. Example: o A tax bill can be enforced by the bankruptcy office on the same bases as a sentence of the court. o The fact finding is inquisitory as it is up to the administration to decide what evidence is necessary and proper in order to know the truth. This power to decide on the facts gives administration a privileged position in with regard to any legal decision. “Ministre Juge”: o The French concept of administrative law historically, and does even today, gives the power to decide on administrative law complaints to the administration itself. Thus in some instances, the administration itself has the power to decide ultimately on complaints and in some instances, it decides as first and second instance with the possibility to have a final appeal to the conseil d’etat or to the tribunal administratif. This concept is based on the idea that the principle of separation of powers requires only the administration to review the legality of its proper decisions. In particular when a decision is sued by the subject at least in the first instance it should be reviewed by the administration. This system which has been largely followed by the Swiss is called “ministre juge” as it gives to the minister or its administration in fact judicial powers and judicial functions. o In Switzerland, the administrative procedures provide some principles of natural justice for the subjects with regard to the fact finding of
13
the administration. According to these principles, they have the so called “right to be heard”. This does not mean a guarantee of oral and public proceedings. It only gives the subjects the right to propose evidence, to know the relevant documents and to submit their view of the facts to the administration. o However the principle nemo judex in causa sua does NOT apply in these proceedings. o Those who are subject of the decision have the right, but also the obligation, to complain and to require the decision to be reviewed either by a higher authority or by an administrative tribunal or administrative court. If they do not question the decision within a certain time limit, the decision becomes valid although it may have been unlawful or ultra vires. The system is based on the fiction that the administration as protector of the public interest enjoys in principle the benefit of the doubt. Exampleo According to Swiss procedure on the decision whether a asylum seeker is granted the status of a refugee, the relevant statute has even enlarged the benefit of the doubt on behalf of the administration as the authority does not even have to investigate whether the asylum seeker is in danger, but only to establish whether the defendant claiming the status of a refugee is credible or not. Thus when asylum seeker makes whatever contradictory statements in the proceedings, the statute empowers the administration to deny their credibility and to refuse the status of a refugee. Example: o In Switzerland, there was no constitutional guarantee of court protection in all cases in which rights might be violated. It took
14
the Swiss development of administrative law a long time to adapt to the modern requirements of a general protection against misuse of administrative powers and general right to have access to a court with regard to administrative disputes. Example: o When a couple of years ago, the security council in Turkey decided to put Kurdish members of parliament in jail, one of the defendants was accused of having contacts with the PKK in Syria. He pretended that all telephone calls were made with his son, who is studying in Syria. He proposed witnesses to prove that this fact is correct. The court refused this evidence, on the ground that it does not need further evidence as it believes to its secret services. This is typical procedure based on the inquisitory system contrary to the adversary system. The Relationship Between Citizens and the Civil Service o In addition, the court had the ordinary powers to execute the order with the contempt of court, that is the possibility to punish the civil servant in case he would not fulfill the order. For this reason the defendant in a case against the administration was not ? as in civil law countries ? the authority or the administrative office but a specific civil servant responsible for executing the orders of the court. Example: o In the Watergate scandal for instance, the judge of a federal district court (lowest instance) could order President Nixon to hand out his famous tapes. o On the continent, the courts had never been given the power to order or to prohibit special measures or activities of the civil servants. The authority of the state could not be sued in a traditional private law court except for damages if the authority acted as a private person. Even today, the administrative courts can not issue any order to a civil servant or a public body. o Citizens are perceived as partners o Citizens are still perceived as
15
of the administration. subjects of the administration. o However, today, the main principles to be observed by the administration in the common law and in the Continental Administrative Law courts have developed in quite a similar direction, due to major international human rights documents. The Concept of Police o In common law countries, the police have no special right to use its weapons and to injure private persons. There is only an individual right to self-defence. The possibilities to use weapons for self-defence legally, for instance in the case of trespassing private property, are much wider than in civil law countries. o The police as the prolonged arm of the executive have much more powers with regard to the subjects then in a common law tradition. It can arrest, investigate, and use force according to its own assessment of the situation. It does not need a court decision in order to arrest people or to use force. In many civil law countries the right use of weapons by the police is regulated either by interior directives either by the special statutes on the police. The Concept of Criminal Cases The basic difference between procedures is the totally different approach to fact finding. Adversarial system of the finding of the facts / Due process/natural justice Inquisitory system of the finding of the facts o The basic principles of due process, or of natural justice as developed by British jurisprudence, are the rights to have access to a court, for an independent judge, to have access to all evidence, to the principle of audiatur et alter pars, nemo judex in causa sua, etc. o In some cases, and in particular in the US Constitution, the due process also includes the right to a o The continental law system is based, for criminal trials and also administrative decisions, on the idea that the administration and in particular the prosecutor are defending the higher state interest. As the defender of public interest, he/she should have special status as plaintiff in the proceedings, privileged with regard to the status of the defendant. As the protector
16
jury trial. These principles have mainly been developed in criminal cases during the centuries. o The main purpose of a procedure is to give the best guarantees for an optimal fact finding, taking into account the opposing interests of the different parties. o The criminal proceedings in a common law country are based on the idea that the prosecutor defending the interest of the state is the adversary of the defendant and that both parties are on equal footing. o The prosecutor has to convince all members of the jury of his view of the facts, as any verdict of the jury needs unanimity. Both parties thus are considered as adversaries with equal chances before the jury. of the public interest, the prosecutor has to include in this public interest also the interest of the defendant. Thus he should have already established the facts before the trial which then can be reviewed in the proceedings before the court. This concept of fact-finding by the state prosecutor is called the inquisitory principle. o Additionally, the prosecutor can not on their own decision abstain from the prosecution of a specific crime. All crimes are to be officially prosecuted. Thus the prosecutor can not propose either a deal with the defendant to release him or her if he/she accepts to be a witness in another case or threaten the defendant with high punishment if he/she does not confess the facts according to the assumption of the prosecutor. o Based on the credibility the law gives to the prosecutor as protector of the public interest, the procedure provides more or less privileges to the plaintiff representing the state in criminal procedures. However, the European Convention on Human Rights has provided some basic principles which have substantially improved the right of a defendant in a criminal and in some instances also in an administrative law case. o European Court of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights provides a general right to have access to the court in all cases in which civil rights have been violated (art. 6). 17
The Legitimacy of the Judiciary o The judge has to protect citizens with regard to their inalienable rights. The legitimacy of the judiciary is in consequence based on a “pre-constitutional” nature of human rights, which in order to be effective, need a judicial protection. o The court derives its legitimacy from the constitution. The Concept of Legal Education o American society is much more competitive than continental European society. The ideology behind is based on the Calvinist conviction that competition guaranties not only the selection of the fittest but also the selection of the morally most valuable. This has consequences for the understanding of the very function of the entire judicial system, including the adversary principle in criminal law. The trial procedure has to offer equal chances to the parties competing for their right before a jury. o The party that wins is in the right and has justice on its side. This system is much more competitive than the judicial system according to the continental legal systems. o American law schools have to train their students in order to empower them to become good winning lawyers. The American law teacher seems to be much more a trainer who has to make winning lawyers and therefore train the students in all skills necessary to win a case. o Continental European law schools have to teach the students, what the law is and how they can find the law with regard to concrete cases. o The party, which is in its rights, should win the case. Thus the rules of the procedure before the court have to help the judge to find justice and to let those parties who are right win the case. Justice is not considered as a result of the case but as the source of the rights to be found by the judge. 18
The Relationship Between the Economy and Law o The interdependence of economy and law and legal realism are influential philosophies mainly in the United States because they are directly related to the creative power of the judge. o In the United States the law is also made by the judge. The view of the law under the auspices of costs and benefit is a tool for the judge as a law maker. o Economy and law for instance are important relationships for the political legislature. They may give additional understanding of the statutes for researchers, but an analysis of the relationship has no real impact on court decisions. o A continental European judge who does apply and interpret legislative norms does not need such kind of tools. And with regard to the legislature such concepts based on economy are much more part of the political decision making process influenced by the different party ideologies. 19
3. Key Questions to Consider When Getting Involved • Does the legal system of the country belong to the continental European tradition or to the British/American tradition? • How is the rule of law principle viewed in the country with regard to access to the court, the remedies available, the procedure and fact finding, the power of the court, and the status of the administration including the police? • Is decentralisation implanted with regard to the legal system of the country? • How is the administration considered with regard to the citizens? • Is the independence of the judiciary a priority in the country? • Do the local police have the same independence as a judge? • Is government perceived as a moderator between individuals and social groups seeking the happiness of people or is the state conceived as a collective unit containing all elements of justice and law and established by the social contract? • Is the right of resistance and of self-determination more important than the common welfare and a proactive political authority? • What is the priority in the legal system: the procedural rights or the substantial rights; what is decided or who has decided? • What is the source of law, the reason or wisdom of court precedents or the authority of the sovereign? 20
• Is decentralisation an argument in a country like France based on a legal culture with total equality of rights? • Is the legitimacy of government only a question of some kind of democracy or is it not much more an issue linked to demos, nation and ethnicity? • Can an immigration country achieve legitimacy with regard to the Native population just by democracy? • Rule of Law, accountability, transparency, democracy, decentralisation are constitutional principles that will implement a worldwide harmonization of constitutional and administrative law. To what extent will such principles only be implemented on paper and to what extent will they change political, social and cultural reality? • The principles above were established within the specific cultures of countries committed to the constitutionalism of the 17th century. Will former colonies and former communist countries internalize these goals which were fundamental for the West or will they only confess them in order to gain new credits of IMF and World Bank? • To what extent those prima facie obvious principles of good/democratic governance can apply to a country divided by an ethnically fragmented society? • To whom is a government accountable: only to the ethnic majority or also to the minority? • What is the need of a public in an internally divided society? • To what extent can the freedom of the press be an instrument to stir up hatred between already divided communities? 21
4. Practical/Policy Implications for Programming Developmental policy and programmes should also take the following different concepts into account: a) The Concept of Constitution Continental Europeans are more prepared to accept some particularities of human rights against the universalist concept of the United States. Continental Europeans have a different view of the rule of law, which is not considered to be a pre-constitutional limit of sovereignty but rather the obligation to observe the constitution imposed on all state bodies by the constitution. Continental Europeans are much more inclined to support constitutions which contain social rights. This difference is crucial for the understanding of countries that are part of the civil or common law systems. b) The Concept of the Territory of the State The American Constitution starts with “We the people of United States”. This is a concept that is open and includes all persons immigrating into the United States. The melting-pot is at least the basic constitutional formula. Based on this concept, Americans can easily imagine that people however fragmented they are, can all over the world can establish a new constitution or a new state. They have difficulties to understand that in most traditional states the peoples have historical roots linked to the territory. The issue of a government confronted with a non-determined territory, as for instance Serbia, is not at all familiar to the tradition of most continental European States and also for Americans. How can democracy and the rule of law be established in a “state” which has no determined territory? The state does not know which people within what territory are the holders of sovereignty. 22
c) The Concept of the Rule of Law and of Rights One should be aware that the introduction of procedural rights or substantial rights in a constitution for a country with civil law or common law tradition has a very different impact on the reality. For a continental European judge, substantial rights are crucial, procedural rights have a direct impact on its jurisdiction. For a common law country, procedural rights are core rights for any due process/natural justice, substantive rights may not give the expected impact a continental European adviser would expect. d) The Concept of International Treaties According to the common law tradition, international treaties are not part of domestic law. They can only be within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts if international treaties are incorporated by legislation. Whenever a treaty is concluded with a country of the common law system, one has to seek that it is incorporated into domestic law if one is interested that this treaty is applied by the courts. e) The Concept of Administration and Justice In common law countries, one has in particular to analyze the education of judges and lawyers, as well as the financial burden for any party to defend its interests before the court. In civil law countries, the most sensitive issue is the independence of the judiciary. In countries where the principle of the ministre judge is still prevalent, opening up access to administrative courts should have priority. In common law countries, one has to be aware that the courts have much more independent power than in countries with the civil law system. 23
The essential focus on procedural human rights is typical for the common law perception of rights. As already mentioned, in the common law perception, the one who wins the case is right. According to the continental European perception the one who is right should win the case. If rights and justice depend on the ruling of the court in a specific case, then the right to guarantee access to the court is the most essential, as without access to justice there is no right and, in particular, no human right. Today, the writ of habeas corpus is available against any restriction of personal liberty by the state administration: imprisonment, custody, enforced delivery to a psychiatric clinic etc. In the common law system, the procedure is oral - the judge has to see the defendant in person -, while in the continental law system, such procedures are in most cases written. Example: In Israel, prisoners asking for habeas corpus have the right to see the judge of the Supreme Court in charge of their case. In what civil law country would a prisoner have the opportunity to defend him/herself before a judge of the Supreme Court? In Israel, Swiss Caritas was not able to get a license for the building of a children’s hospital in Bethlehem. In a civil law country one would have to find political means in order to change the attitude of the authorities. In a common law country the mandamus is the best available legal remedy, which enables the plaintiff to require a license for building this hospital to be issued. It was thus possible to initiate a court procedure based on mandamus in order to get this license. f) The Concept of the Police With regard to common law countries, one has to investigate the concept of the local police power. Unfortunately the British usually did not implement their own police concept in their former colonies. If the former colonies would establish a local police similar to the British one, under a chief constable with almost the same independence as a judge and mainly accountable to the county council, the situation with regard to torture and corruption might be rather different. For instance: A case against torture decided by the Supreme Court of Israel could only be initiated with a writ of injunction familiar to Common Law but not to Civil Law. A court, which according to the continental law system can only quash decisions, does not have the right to prohibit torture. For instance: It is easier to accept the specific jurisdiction of the traditional customary courts in an African Country with Common Law tradition than in an African country with Civil Law tradition committed to a concept of unity of the law.
24
One tool : the “Ombudsperson” The institution of the Ombudsperson has its roots in the early legal history of Sweden going back to the beginning of the 19th century. This institution if it is well designed - with the independence of the office, with its right to investigate all administrative activities on its own initiative, with its possibility to sue civil servants for criminal activity (e.g. corruption) and with the right of every citizen to have a free access to the office and its accountability to a multi-party parliament - would deserve more attention by the Breton Wood Institutions, particularly with regard to the improvement of the rule of law principle. Relative Difference in Decentralisation Impacts The issue of decentralisation will have a different impact in a country with a common law tradition than in one with a civil law tradition. For example, in the common law tradition, central government always had to enforce central obligations against resisting local authorities with the writ of mandamus. In the civil law tradition, the “préfet”, and in some instances even the mayor is directly dependent on the minister of the interior. Decentralisation as such can not be considered as positive or negative for the development of the specific country. The main question is how decentralisation is implemented. In a civil law country, decentralisation needs to be implemented with the right of local authorities to legislate in specific areas. It needs independence of the local authorities with regard to the implementation of central law. One should ask whether the final accountability of local authorities with regard to expenditures should not depend on local democracy. Research done by the World Bank has come to the conclusion that only such decentralisation would diminish at least heavy corruption. From the Swiss case, we know though that the small corruption of local authorities can easily take place in local municipalities. 25
Different approaches are required with regard to decentralisation in common law countries. One should examine the possibilities of local authorities to issue bylaws and to find out to what extent this is possible within the competence of the parliament. The very concept of the parliamentary sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament may be the main problem for any decentralisation concept. For instance, in Sri Lanka the 13th amendment of the constitution, while providing for a strong decentralisation, still leaves the central power the possibility to control or unilaterally revoke the local government. When we extend the comparative approach to the South and to the East, we have to be aware of some additional important challenges. The first challenge for comparative legal jurisprudence is to establish evidence that principles that have been developed in Western democracies, based on Christian philosophy and Enlightenment culture, can also be integrated into legal traditions that have totally different cultural and religious roots. Rule of Law, accountability, transparency, democracy, decentralisation are constitutional principles that may drive a worldwide harmonization of constitutional and administrative law. Sustainable harmonisation can never have success based on a one way policy, it will achieve broad acceptance only if it is an amalgam of different cultures. The very challenge of comparative public law today thus is not only to find unity and universality of principles but also its diversity and to work out the possibilities that should enable all parts to promote diversities for the happiness of all human beings. This endeavour, however, will only gain credibility if it is not believed to be just another instrument to promote one sided interests of the creditors to the detriment of the debtors. Thus it is the very challenge of comparative science not only to seek evidence and arguments for the universality of Western values but also to uncover the values of other cultures that should influence our post-modern and globalised world. 26
5. References WENDY S. AYRES, Supporting Decentralization: “The Role and Experience of the World Bank”, in: Decentralization and Development, Publications on Development of the SDC Berne 1999. LIDIJA BASTA, Quelques considérations sur la relation conceptuelle entre la “Rule of Law” et le “Rechtsstaat”. In: Mélanges P. Gélard, 9-11, Paris (Montchréstien) 1999. J-J. CHEVALLIER, Histoire des institutions et des régimes politiques de la France, 7th ed., 122, Paris (Dalloz) 1985. TH. FLEINER, Hobbes' Lehre vom Gesellschaftsvertrag und die Tradition der Schweizerischen Volkssouveränität. In: Thomas Hobbes, Anthropologie und Staatsphilosophie, 79-91, Freiburg (Switzerland) 1981. TH. FLEINER, General Remarks on Some Principles of the Cantonal and Federal Administrative Law of Switzerland. In : DESSEMONTET/ANSAY (eds.), Introduction to Swiss Law, 2nd ed., 27-45, 31, The Hague (Kluwer) 1995. SUSAN GEORGE, The World Bank and its Concept of Good Governance, The Democratisation of Disempowerment, ed. Jochen Hippler, 1995. DAVID KENNEDY, A Rotation in Contemporary Legal Scholarship. In : CH. JOERGES/D. M. TRUBEK (eds.), Critical Legal Thought : An American ? German Debate, 353-396, Baden-Baden (Nomos) 1989. 27
1. Introduction First, this tip sheet analyses the historical roots of the two major legal systems of the world. Secondly, it illustrates the different conceptions of administrative and constitutional law and of the judiciary with regard to some key concepts and key questions. In conclusion, the tip sheet highlights the differences with regard to decentralisation processes in countries having a common law tradition or a continental law tradition. 2. Key Concepts • State / Constitution • Human rights / Rule of law • International Law • Federalism / Legislative power • Authority • Administration • Police • Criminal cases • Legal education 6
Common Law (in the United States and Great Britain) Continental Law (in France, Germany, Switzerland etc…) The Concept of the State Lockean concept of the state o The State has limited sovereignty. Government is perceived only as a moderator of individuals and social groups to the extent minimally needed to protect individual liberty. o Men are governed by law and not by men. Leviathan (Hobbesian) concept of the state o Authority or sovereignty is the true and only source of law and justice. The main holder of sovereignty is the legislature as the only law maker. o The “pouvoir constituant” instituting the state can be seen as the “big bang” out of which the universe of justice, law and legitimate state authority including the rule of law and human rights is evolving. This universe is defined by the territory of the state and its authority. The state is conceived as a collective unit containing all elements of justice and law and established by the social contract. The Concept of the Constitution Locke’s natural law o The American Declaration of independence is based on the concept of natural law, the right of resistance and the right of self-determination. Example: o In the American Declaration of independence, one can find the sentence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among Rousseau’s « volonté générale » o The French revolution established the parliament as the sovereign power which enacts the statutes and the statutes implement the “volonté générale”. Example : o Art. 6 of the Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme 1789: „La loi est l'expression de la volonté générale. » o Continental European constitutions changed the
7
these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” o In 1787, the American Constitution constituted not only a new government but, much more, it constituted a new state composed of several already existing sovereign states and members of the Confederation. The American Declaration of independence has six basic pre-conditions: 1) It had to base the declaration on the universal principle that people have been given inalienable rights by the Creator. 2) It had to prove that the English Colonial Government violated inalienable rights. 3) It had to give evidence that a people have a right of resistance out of the inalienable rights against a state power violating those rights. 4) It had to demonstrate that the power to govern a people comes from the people, but that this power is limited to the inalienable rights. 5) It had to determine the people having the power to set up a new government. 6) It had to give evidence, that the new government will be a government of consent and will thus apply and fully respect the inalienable rights of the people. government but not the state. o Constitutions are not only conceived as instruments to limit governmental power but they are also seen as the tools to set up, organize and empower the governmental branches in order to establish the liberal state and the social welfare state. The Swiss Constitution : o Article 5: “The law is the basis and limitation for all activities of the state”. The Concept of Human Rights o Human rights are considered as pre-constitutional rights limiting the entire state authority. o The individual pursuit of happiness is on the same level as individual liberty. o Welfare is not a responsibility of the state or the political community. o Human rights are created by the constitution. o Rights are given by the state or the political authority. o The continental Europeans believe that the pursuit of happiness depends on the common welfare and thus depends on the policy of the state. 8
Example: Article 2 of the Swiss Constitution provides welfare to be considered as common endeavour to be achieved with the support of the political community that is the state. The Concept of the Rule of Law Concept of pre-constitutional rights o The rule of law has a pre-constitutional meaning which goes far beyond the continental European understanding of the “Rechtsstaat”. o The due process/natural justice content is considered as the most substantial right. The courts empowered by the basic procedural rights will implement justice even though substantial rights may NOT be given constitutional priority. Concept of « Rechtsstaat » (« Etat de droit »
o The rule of law limits the government to the normative decisions of the sovereign established in the constitution. Rechtsstaat only guarantees the correct application of the constitution by the state authorities. o Continental Europeans are more inclined towards substantial rights. Substantial rights influence the legislature and are important tools for the constitutional review of statutes. The Concept of International Law o According to the common law tradition, international treaties are not part of domestic law. They can only be within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts if international treaties are incorporated by legislation. Example: o For long time the British Courts could not implement the European Charter of Human Rights until the enactment of the Human Rights act in 1998. o The concept of implementing international law differs between continental European countries, depending on the provision in their constitutions. The states belonging to this legal system can embrace either of the two concepts implementing international law (monistic or dualistic concept). Example: o According to the Swiss tradition, international treaties are directly applicable as part of part of domestic law. Thus, without requiring further domestic legislation, they can be enforced by domestic courts (monistic conception). 9Example: o In Israel the Supreme Court, although applying the Hague Law on war as customary law, has no power to implement the Geneva Conventions because they have never been incorporated by the Knesset. Exception: o One important exception is the United States. According to Section Two of the Constitution on the scope of the judicial power, the Constitution clearly provides the monistic concept of direct applicability of international treaties. The Concept of Federalism and Legislative Power o Federalism has to take into account the division of sovereignty of the three traditional branches of government: legislative, executive and judiciary. o It is based on the very idea to set up two parallel sovereignties with three sovereign branches of government. o Federalism is mainly designed along the legislature. The main concern with regard to federalism is the distribution of legislative power. o The courts are also law makers. o The legislature (parliament or “assemblée nationale”) is the only law maker. o The court is only the body to apply the law. o The source of the law is the reason or the wisdom of court precedents.o The law was decided by the courts and it depended on the tradition and the precedents of the specific courts. o A right or obligation in the meaning of objective law can be created by the judge (judge-made law). o Law is not a unit, but it is linked to the court which had the jurisdiction o The source of the law is the authority of the sovereign. o Public law is perceived as a hierarchy of norms developing out of the constitution and depending each on its mother-statute. Public law is not under the jurisdiction of the traditional courts. o Statutes already contain rights and obligations. o The idea of a unified legal system, which includes all possible legal
10
to decide on the specific writ. o Today, common law systems also have statues and other rules and regulations as part of their legal system. rights and obligations, is based on the Napoleonic Public Law Concept. The Concept of Authority Procedure and Due Process/Natural Justice o The procedure guarantees legitimacy, “good law” and justice. o Important is what has been decided and not who has decided. o The one who wins the case is right.This comes from Calvinism, according to which the fate of every human being in the other world is pre-decided. o This belief makes success a symbol of the grace of God. The outcome of a case, provided both parties had equal chances in the procedure, is in conformity with justice. This is the basis of today’s legal realism in the United States and of the judge as law maker. o Rights and obligations are determined in cases decided by the court and in an adversary procedure. With the jury trial, the procedure is of primary importance.The Hierarchy of Norms o It is the higher instance, which is closer to the roots of justice than agencies on a deeper level of state-hierarchy that guaranties legitimacy, “good law” and justice. o The level of the authority to issue norms, or administrative decisions or even judgements is even more important than the content. o What is important is not what has been decided but who has decided. This is the notion of hierarchy in the sense that higher instances decide better, know better, understand better and judge more justly. o The one who is right should win the case and the judge has to know what the rights and obligations of the defendant are. o This comes from the tradition of the authority of the Catholic Church. The highest authority is the closest to God. As soon as the King by the grace of God was replaced by the people, the authority representing the people became the highest sovereign body. o Rights and obligations are given by the law. o The revolution will always be o The making of a new constitutional 11
somehow limited, as the court system can not easily be replaced. The court will remain law-makers which justify their sentences in taking into account the old traditional wisdom of common reason/natural justice established by the British courts through centuries. basis is easier. The constitution can establish a legislature, which can design and establish a new legal system from scratch. The Concept of Administration Concept of prerogative writs o According to common law, remedies available to the subjects defending their interests with regard to the administration are determined by the writs which give the power to the court to decide on certain specific issues. o The traditional writs of the courts were the common law writs and in particular the writ of injunction. Based on a writ of injunction, the court can order the defendant, who may be a civil servant, to pursue a given purpose or to abstain from certain intended activity. If the order needs to be executed, the court can punish the defendant for not pursuing the court’s order by charging them with contempt of court. o They are called prerogative writs because they are special orders given to the court in general by the Lord Chancellor, originally on behalf of the Crown. Based on those writs, the court is given the power to order specific measures to “other servants of the Crown” (e.g. Head of a prison, police etc.), to review specific decisions, to provide certain measures or to Concept of public law / the power of administration o Napoleon separated public law from private law. o The state according, to Napoleon, could only be an efficient instrument for social engineering if the state administration was not under the jurisdiction of the traditional and conservative courts and judges. Since then administrative courts have been established but they still have very limited power with regard to their jurisdiction over the state administration. o Public law should not be under the jurisdiction of the conservative courts. With this new public law, the administration has the power to execute statutes without being accountable to the traditional judges. o Administrative decisions have thus a value similar to a sentence ruled by the judge as they are enforceable. The “public law” gives to the administrative authority the power to issue unilateral decisions or administrative acts with almost the same obligatory force and
12
prohibit an intended activity. o The first and most important prerogative writ was the writ of habeas corpus followed by the writ of mandamus and then the writ of certiorari. o The prerogative writs were first given to the court by the Lord Chancellor, but some of those writs, in particular the writ of habeas corpus, became part of the traditional writs to be decided by the courts without a specific mandate from the Chancellor. Since those writs were given to the ordinary courts, the writ once introduced gave the subject as the plaintiff equal procedural chances and opportunities with regard to its defendant the public administration. o The administration and private party are on equal footing in such a procedure. authority as court judgments. Example: o A tax bill can be enforced by the bankruptcy office on the same bases as a sentence of the court. o The fact finding is inquisitory as it is up to the administration to decide what evidence is necessary and proper in order to know the truth. This power to decide on the facts gives administration a privileged position in with regard to any legal decision. “Ministre Juge”: o The French concept of administrative law historically, and does even today, gives the power to decide on administrative law complaints to the administration itself. Thus in some instances, the administration itself has the power to decide ultimately on complaints and in some instances, it decides as first and second instance with the possibility to have a final appeal to the conseil d’etat or to the tribunal administratif. This concept is based on the idea that the principle of separation of powers requires only the administration to review the legality of its proper decisions. In particular when a decision is sued by the subject at least in the first instance it should be reviewed by the administration. This system which has been largely followed by the Swiss is called “ministre juge” as it gives to the minister or its administration in fact judicial powers and judicial functions. o In Switzerland, the administrative procedures provide some principles of natural justice for the subjects with regard to the fact finding of
13
the administration. According to these principles, they have the so called “right to be heard”. This does not mean a guarantee of oral and public proceedings. It only gives the subjects the right to propose evidence, to know the relevant documents and to submit their view of the facts to the administration. o However the principle nemo judex in causa sua does NOT apply in these proceedings. o Those who are subject of the decision have the right, but also the obligation, to complain and to require the decision to be reviewed either by a higher authority or by an administrative tribunal or administrative court. If they do not question the decision within a certain time limit, the decision becomes valid although it may have been unlawful or ultra vires. The system is based on the fiction that the administration as protector of the public interest enjoys in principle the benefit of the doubt. Exampleo According to Swiss procedure on the decision whether a asylum seeker is granted the status of a refugee, the relevant statute has even enlarged the benefit of the doubt on behalf of the administration as the authority does not even have to investigate whether the asylum seeker is in danger, but only to establish whether the defendant claiming the status of a refugee is credible or not. Thus when asylum seeker makes whatever contradictory statements in the proceedings, the statute empowers the administration to deny their credibility and to refuse the status of a refugee. Example: o In Switzerland, there was no constitutional guarantee of court protection in all cases in which rights might be violated. It took
14
the Swiss development of administrative law a long time to adapt to the modern requirements of a general protection against misuse of administrative powers and general right to have access to a court with regard to administrative disputes. Example: o When a couple of years ago, the security council in Turkey decided to put Kurdish members of parliament in jail, one of the defendants was accused of having contacts with the PKK in Syria. He pretended that all telephone calls were made with his son, who is studying in Syria. He proposed witnesses to prove that this fact is correct. The court refused this evidence, on the ground that it does not need further evidence as it believes to its secret services. This is typical procedure based on the inquisitory system contrary to the adversary system. The Relationship Between Citizens and the Civil Service o In addition, the court had the ordinary powers to execute the order with the contempt of court, that is the possibility to punish the civil servant in case he would not fulfill the order. For this reason the defendant in a case against the administration was not ? as in civil law countries ? the authority or the administrative office but a specific civil servant responsible for executing the orders of the court. Example: o In the Watergate scandal for instance, the judge of a federal district court (lowest instance) could order President Nixon to hand out his famous tapes. o On the continent, the courts had never been given the power to order or to prohibit special measures or activities of the civil servants. The authority of the state could not be sued in a traditional private law court except for damages if the authority acted as a private person. Even today, the administrative courts can not issue any order to a civil servant or a public body. o Citizens are perceived as partners o Citizens are still perceived as
15
of the administration. subjects of the administration. o However, today, the main principles to be observed by the administration in the common law and in the Continental Administrative Law courts have developed in quite a similar direction, due to major international human rights documents. The Concept of Police o In common law countries, the police have no special right to use its weapons and to injure private persons. There is only an individual right to self-defence. The possibilities to use weapons for self-defence legally, for instance in the case of trespassing private property, are much wider than in civil law countries. o The police as the prolonged arm of the executive have much more powers with regard to the subjects then in a common law tradition. It can arrest, investigate, and use force according to its own assessment of the situation. It does not need a court decision in order to arrest people or to use force. In many civil law countries the right use of weapons by the police is regulated either by interior directives either by the special statutes on the police. The Concept of Criminal Cases The basic difference between procedures is the totally different approach to fact finding. Adversarial system of the finding of the facts / Due process/natural justice Inquisitory system of the finding of the facts o The basic principles of due process, or of natural justice as developed by British jurisprudence, are the rights to have access to a court, for an independent judge, to have access to all evidence, to the principle of audiatur et alter pars, nemo judex in causa sua, etc. o In some cases, and in particular in the US Constitution, the due process also includes the right to a o The continental law system is based, for criminal trials and also administrative decisions, on the idea that the administration and in particular the prosecutor are defending the higher state interest. As the defender of public interest, he/she should have special status as plaintiff in the proceedings, privileged with regard to the status of the defendant. As the protector
16
jury trial. These principles have mainly been developed in criminal cases during the centuries. o The main purpose of a procedure is to give the best guarantees for an optimal fact finding, taking into account the opposing interests of the different parties. o The criminal proceedings in a common law country are based on the idea that the prosecutor defending the interest of the state is the adversary of the defendant and that both parties are on equal footing. o The prosecutor has to convince all members of the jury of his view of the facts, as any verdict of the jury needs unanimity. Both parties thus are considered as adversaries with equal chances before the jury. of the public interest, the prosecutor has to include in this public interest also the interest of the defendant. Thus he should have already established the facts before the trial which then can be reviewed in the proceedings before the court. This concept of fact-finding by the state prosecutor is called the inquisitory principle. o Additionally, the prosecutor can not on their own decision abstain from the prosecution of a specific crime. All crimes are to be officially prosecuted. Thus the prosecutor can not propose either a deal with the defendant to release him or her if he/she accepts to be a witness in another case or threaten the defendant with high punishment if he/she does not confess the facts according to the assumption of the prosecutor. o Based on the credibility the law gives to the prosecutor as protector of the public interest, the procedure provides more or less privileges to the plaintiff representing the state in criminal procedures. However, the European Convention on Human Rights has provided some basic principles which have substantially improved the right of a defendant in a criminal and in some instances also in an administrative law case. o European Court of Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights provides a general right to have access to the court in all cases in which civil rights have been violated (art. 6). 17
The Legitimacy of the Judiciary o The judge has to protect citizens with regard to their inalienable rights. The legitimacy of the judiciary is in consequence based on a “pre-constitutional” nature of human rights, which in order to be effective, need a judicial protection. o The court derives its legitimacy from the constitution. The Concept of Legal Education o American society is much more competitive than continental European society. The ideology behind is based on the Calvinist conviction that competition guaranties not only the selection of the fittest but also the selection of the morally most valuable. This has consequences for the understanding of the very function of the entire judicial system, including the adversary principle in criminal law. The trial procedure has to offer equal chances to the parties competing for their right before a jury. o The party that wins is in the right and has justice on its side. This system is much more competitive than the judicial system according to the continental legal systems. o American law schools have to train their students in order to empower them to become good winning lawyers. The American law teacher seems to be much more a trainer who has to make winning lawyers and therefore train the students in all skills necessary to win a case. o Continental European law schools have to teach the students, what the law is and how they can find the law with regard to concrete cases. o The party, which is in its rights, should win the case. Thus the rules of the procedure before the court have to help the judge to find justice and to let those parties who are right win the case. Justice is not considered as a result of the case but as the source of the rights to be found by the judge. 18
The Relationship Between the Economy and Law o The interdependence of economy and law and legal realism are influential philosophies mainly in the United States because they are directly related to the creative power of the judge. o In the United States the law is also made by the judge. The view of the law under the auspices of costs and benefit is a tool for the judge as a law maker. o Economy and law for instance are important relationships for the political legislature. They may give additional understanding of the statutes for researchers, but an analysis of the relationship has no real impact on court decisions. o A continental European judge who does apply and interpret legislative norms does not need such kind of tools. And with regard to the legislature such concepts based on economy are much more part of the political decision making process influenced by the different party ideologies. 19
3. Key Questions to Consider When Getting Involved • Does the legal system of the country belong to the continental European tradition or to the British/American tradition? • How is the rule of law principle viewed in the country with regard to access to the court, the remedies available, the procedure and fact finding, the power of the court, and the status of the administration including the police? • Is decentralisation implanted with regard to the legal system of the country? • How is the administration considered with regard to the citizens? • Is the independence of the judiciary a priority in the country? • Do the local police have the same independence as a judge? • Is government perceived as a moderator between individuals and social groups seeking the happiness of people or is the state conceived as a collective unit containing all elements of justice and law and established by the social contract? • Is the right of resistance and of self-determination more important than the common welfare and a proactive political authority? • What is the priority in the legal system: the procedural rights or the substantial rights; what is decided or who has decided? • What is the source of law, the reason or wisdom of court precedents or the authority of the sovereign? 20
• Is decentralisation an argument in a country like France based on a legal culture with total equality of rights? • Is the legitimacy of government only a question of some kind of democracy or is it not much more an issue linked to demos, nation and ethnicity? • Can an immigration country achieve legitimacy with regard to the Native population just by democracy? • Rule of Law, accountability, transparency, democracy, decentralisation are constitutional principles that will implement a worldwide harmonization of constitutional and administrative law. To what extent will such principles only be implemented on paper and to what extent will they change political, social and cultural reality? • The principles above were established within the specific cultures of countries committed to the constitutionalism of the 17th century. Will former colonies and former communist countries internalize these goals which were fundamental for the West or will they only confess them in order to gain new credits of IMF and World Bank? • To what extent those prima facie obvious principles of good/democratic governance can apply to a country divided by an ethnically fragmented society? • To whom is a government accountable: only to the ethnic majority or also to the minority? • What is the need of a public in an internally divided society? • To what extent can the freedom of the press be an instrument to stir up hatred between already divided communities? 21
4. Practical/Policy Implications for Programming Developmental policy and programmes should also take the following different concepts into account: a) The Concept of Constitution Continental Europeans are more prepared to accept some particularities of human rights against the universalist concept of the United States. Continental Europeans have a different view of the rule of law, which is not considered to be a pre-constitutional limit of sovereignty but rather the obligation to observe the constitution imposed on all state bodies by the constitution. Continental Europeans are much more inclined to support constitutions which contain social rights. This difference is crucial for the understanding of countries that are part of the civil or common law systems. b) The Concept of the Territory of the State The American Constitution starts with “We the people of United States”. This is a concept that is open and includes all persons immigrating into the United States. The melting-pot is at least the basic constitutional formula. Based on this concept, Americans can easily imagine that people however fragmented they are, can all over the world can establish a new constitution or a new state. They have difficulties to understand that in most traditional states the peoples have historical roots linked to the territory. The issue of a government confronted with a non-determined territory, as for instance Serbia, is not at all familiar to the tradition of most continental European States and also for Americans. How can democracy and the rule of law be established in a “state” which has no determined territory? The state does not know which people within what territory are the holders of sovereignty. 22
c) The Concept of the Rule of Law and of Rights One should be aware that the introduction of procedural rights or substantial rights in a constitution for a country with civil law or common law tradition has a very different impact on the reality. For a continental European judge, substantial rights are crucial, procedural rights have a direct impact on its jurisdiction. For a common law country, procedural rights are core rights for any due process/natural justice, substantive rights may not give the expected impact a continental European adviser would expect. d) The Concept of International Treaties According to the common law tradition, international treaties are not part of domestic law. They can only be within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts if international treaties are incorporated by legislation. Whenever a treaty is concluded with a country of the common law system, one has to seek that it is incorporated into domestic law if one is interested that this treaty is applied by the courts. e) The Concept of Administration and Justice In common law countries, one has in particular to analyze the education of judges and lawyers, as well as the financial burden for any party to defend its interests before the court. In civil law countries, the most sensitive issue is the independence of the judiciary. In countries where the principle of the ministre judge is still prevalent, opening up access to administrative courts should have priority. In common law countries, one has to be aware that the courts have much more independent power than in countries with the civil law system. 23
The essential focus on procedural human rights is typical for the common law perception of rights. As already mentioned, in the common law perception, the one who wins the case is right. According to the continental European perception the one who is right should win the case. If rights and justice depend on the ruling of the court in a specific case, then the right to guarantee access to the court is the most essential, as without access to justice there is no right and, in particular, no human right. Today, the writ of habeas corpus is available against any restriction of personal liberty by the state administration: imprisonment, custody, enforced delivery to a psychiatric clinic etc. In the common law system, the procedure is oral - the judge has to see the defendant in person -, while in the continental law system, such procedures are in most cases written. Example: In Israel, prisoners asking for habeas corpus have the right to see the judge of the Supreme Court in charge of their case. In what civil law country would a prisoner have the opportunity to defend him/herself before a judge of the Supreme Court? In Israel, Swiss Caritas was not able to get a license for the building of a children’s hospital in Bethlehem. In a civil law country one would have to find political means in order to change the attitude of the authorities. In a common law country the mandamus is the best available legal remedy, which enables the plaintiff to require a license for building this hospital to be issued. It was thus possible to initiate a court procedure based on mandamus in order to get this license. f) The Concept of the Police With regard to common law countries, one has to investigate the concept of the local police power. Unfortunately the British usually did not implement their own police concept in their former colonies. If the former colonies would establish a local police similar to the British one, under a chief constable with almost the same independence as a judge and mainly accountable to the county council, the situation with regard to torture and corruption might be rather different. For instance: A case against torture decided by the Supreme Court of Israel could only be initiated with a writ of injunction familiar to Common Law but not to Civil Law. A court, which according to the continental law system can only quash decisions, does not have the right to prohibit torture. For instance: It is easier to accept the specific jurisdiction of the traditional customary courts in an African Country with Common Law tradition than in an African country with Civil Law tradition committed to a concept of unity of the law.
24
One tool : the “Ombudsperson” The institution of the Ombudsperson has its roots in the early legal history of Sweden going back to the beginning of the 19th century. This institution if it is well designed - with the independence of the office, with its right to investigate all administrative activities on its own initiative, with its possibility to sue civil servants for criminal activity (e.g. corruption) and with the right of every citizen to have a free access to the office and its accountability to a multi-party parliament - would deserve more attention by the Breton Wood Institutions, particularly with regard to the improvement of the rule of law principle. Relative Difference in Decentralisation Impacts The issue of decentralisation will have a different impact in a country with a common law tradition than in one with a civil law tradition. For example, in the common law tradition, central government always had to enforce central obligations against resisting local authorities with the writ of mandamus. In the civil law tradition, the “préfet”, and in some instances even the mayor is directly dependent on the minister of the interior. Decentralisation as such can not be considered as positive or negative for the development of the specific country. The main question is how decentralisation is implemented. In a civil law country, decentralisation needs to be implemented with the right of local authorities to legislate in specific areas. It needs independence of the local authorities with regard to the implementation of central law. One should ask whether the final accountability of local authorities with regard to expenditures should not depend on local democracy. Research done by the World Bank has come to the conclusion that only such decentralisation would diminish at least heavy corruption. From the Swiss case, we know though that the small corruption of local authorities can easily take place in local municipalities. 25
Different approaches are required with regard to decentralisation in common law countries. One should examine the possibilities of local authorities to issue bylaws and to find out to what extent this is possible within the competence of the parliament. The very concept of the parliamentary sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament may be the main problem for any decentralisation concept. For instance, in Sri Lanka the 13th amendment of the constitution, while providing for a strong decentralisation, still leaves the central power the possibility to control or unilaterally revoke the local government. When we extend the comparative approach to the South and to the East, we have to be aware of some additional important challenges. The first challenge for comparative legal jurisprudence is to establish evidence that principles that have been developed in Western democracies, based on Christian philosophy and Enlightenment culture, can also be integrated into legal traditions that have totally different cultural and religious roots. Rule of Law, accountability, transparency, democracy, decentralisation are constitutional principles that may drive a worldwide harmonization of constitutional and administrative law. Sustainable harmonisation can never have success based on a one way policy, it will achieve broad acceptance only if it is an amalgam of different cultures. The very challenge of comparative public law today thus is not only to find unity and universality of principles but also its diversity and to work out the possibilities that should enable all parts to promote diversities for the happiness of all human beings. This endeavour, however, will only gain credibility if it is not believed to be just another instrument to promote one sided interests of the creditors to the detriment of the debtors. Thus it is the very challenge of comparative science not only to seek evidence and arguments for the universality of Western values but also to uncover the values of other cultures that should influence our post-modern and globalised world. 26
5. References WENDY S. AYRES, Supporting Decentralization: “The Role and Experience of the World Bank”, in: Decentralization and Development, Publications on Development of the SDC Berne 1999. LIDIJA BASTA, Quelques considérations sur la relation conceptuelle entre la “Rule of Law” et le “Rechtsstaat”. In: Mélanges P. Gélard, 9-11, Paris (Montchréstien) 1999. J-J. CHEVALLIER, Histoire des institutions et des régimes politiques de la France, 7th ed., 122, Paris (Dalloz) 1985. TH. FLEINER, Hobbes' Lehre vom Gesellschaftsvertrag und die Tradition der Schweizerischen Volkssouveränität. In: Thomas Hobbes, Anthropologie und Staatsphilosophie, 79-91, Freiburg (Switzerland) 1981. TH. FLEINER, General Remarks on Some Principles of the Cantonal and Federal Administrative Law of Switzerland. In : DESSEMONTET/ANSAY (eds.), Introduction to Swiss Law, 2nd ed., 27-45, 31, The Hague (Kluwer) 1995. SUSAN GEORGE, The World Bank and its Concept of Good Governance, The Democratisation of Disempowerment, ed. Jochen Hippler, 1995. DAVID KENNEDY, A Rotation in Contemporary Legal Scholarship. In : CH. JOERGES/D. M. TRUBEK (eds.), Critical Legal Thought : An American ? German Debate, 353-396, Baden-Baden (Nomos) 1989. 27
Civil law (legal system)
For alternate uses of "civil law", see civil law.
Civil law is a codified system of law that sets out a comprehensive system of rules that are applied and interpreted by judges. It has its origins in Roman law. However, modern systems are descendants of the 19th century codification movement, during which the most important codes (most prominently the Napoleonic Code and the BGB) came into existence. The civilian system is by and large the most widely practiced system of law in the world.
Overview
Civil or civilian law is a legal tradition which is the base of the law in the majority of countries of the world, especially in continental Europe, but also in Quebec (Canada), Louisiana (USA), Japan, Latin America, and most former colonies of continental European countries. The Scottish legal system is usually considered to be a mixed system in that Scots law has a basis in Roman law, combining features of both uncodified Civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis and common law with medieval sources, further influenced by English law after the Union of 1707.
Simply, a civil law is a law enacted by a nation or state for its own jurisdiction.
In the United States, civil law is formally the basis of the law of Louisiana (as circumscribed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution), although in western and southwestern parts of the U.S., laws in such diverse areas as divorce and water rights show the influence of their Iberian civil-law heritage, being based on distinctly different principles from the laws of the northeastern states colonized by settlers with English common-law roots.
History
The civil law is based on Roman law, especially the Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian, as later developed through the Middle Ages by mediæval legal scholars.
Originally civil law was one common legal system in much of Europe, but with the development of nationalism in the 17th century Nordic countries and around the time of the French Revolution, it became fractured into separate national systems. This change was brought about by the development of separate national codes. The French Napoleonic Code and the German and Swiss codes were the most influential ones. Around this time civil law incorporated many ideas associated with the Enlightenment.
Because Germany was a rising power in the late 19th century when many poor Asian nations were introducing civil law, the German Civil Code has been the basis for the legal systems of Japan and South Korea. In China, the German Civil Code was introduced in the later years of the Qing Dynasty and formed the basis of the law of the Republic of China which remains in force in Taiwan.
Some authors consider that civil law later served as the foundation for socialist law used in Communist countries, which in this view would basically be civil law with the addition of Marxist-Leninist ideas.
Civil vs Common law
Civil law is primarily contrasted against common law, which is the legal system developed among Anglo-Saxon peoples, especially in England.
The original difference is that, historically, common law was law developed by custom, beginning before there were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after there were written laws, too, whereas civil law develops out of the Roman law of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis proceeding from broad legal principles and the interpretation of doctrinal writings rather than the application of facts to legal fictions.
In later times, civil law became codified as droit coutumier or customary law that were local compilations of legal principles recognized as normative. Sparked by the age of enlightenment, attempts to codify private law began during the second half of the 18th century (see civil code), but civil codes with a lasting influence were promulgated only after the French Revolution, in jurisdictions such as France (with its Napoleonic Code), Austria (see ABGB), Quebec (see Civil Code of Quebec), Spain (Código Civil), the Netherlands and Germany (see Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). However, codification is by no means a defining characteristic of a civil law system, as e.g. the civil law systems of Scandinavian countries remain largely uncodified, whereas common law jurisdictions have frequently codified parts of their laws, e.g. in the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code. There are also mixed systems, such as the laws of Scotland, Namibia and South Africa.
Thus, the difference between civil law and common law lies less in the mere fact of codification, but in the methodological approach to codes and statutes. In civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be derived. Courts thus have to reason extensively on the basis of general principles of the code, or by drawing analogies from statutory provisions to fill lacunae. By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly.
The underlying principle of separation of powers is seen somewhat differently in civil law and common law countries. In some common law countries, especially the United States, judges are seen as balancing the power of the other branches of government. By contrast, the original idea of separation of powers in France was to assign different roles to legislation and to judges, with the latter only applying the law (the judge as la bouche de la loi). Today, it is widely recognized that this is unworkable in practice. Case law (or, more properly, jurisprudence), plays a considerable role in virtually all civil law countries, even though the development of "judge-made law" through the rule of stare decisis is not formally recognized. As a practical matter, the dichotomy should thus not be overemphasized.
There are notable differences between the legal methodologies of various civil law countries. For example, it is often said that common law opinions are much longer and contain elaborate reasoning, whereas legal opinions in civil law countries are usually very short and formal in nature. This is in principle true in France, where judges cite only legislation, but not prior case law. (However, this does not mean that judges do not consider it when drafting opinions.) By contrast, court opinions in German-speaking countries can be as long as American ones, and normally discuss prior cases and academic writing extensively.
There are, however, certain sociological differences. Civil law judges are usually trained and promoted separately from attorneys, whereas common law judges are usually selected from accomplished and reputable attorneys. Also, the influence of academic writing by law professors on case law tends to be much greater in civil law countries.
Criminal procedure
Civil and common law system also differ considerably in criminal procedure. In general, the judge in a civil law system plays a more active role in determining the facts of the case. Most civil law countries investigate major crimes using a so-called inquisitorial system. Also, civil law systems rely much more on written argument than oral argument.
It is a common but incorrect belief that civil law systems do not offer the presumption of innocence, when in fact they do.
Subgroups
The term "civil law" as applied to a legal tradition actually originates in English-speaking countries, where it was used to lump all non-English legal traditions together and contrast them to the English common law. However, since continental European traditions are by no means uniform, scholars of comparative law and economists promoting the legal origins theory usually subdivide civil law into three distinct groups:
French civil law: in France, the Benelux countries, Spain and former colonies of those countries;
German civil law: in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Japan, South Korea and the Republic of China (Taiwan);
Scandinavian civil law: in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland.
Portugal and Italy have evolved from French to German influence, as their 19th century civil codes were close to the Napoleonic Code and their 20th century civil codes are much closer to the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Legal culture and law schools have also come near to the German system. The other law in these countries is often said to be of a hybrid nature.
The Dutch law or at least the Dutch civil code cannot be easily placed in one of the mentioned groups either, and it has itself influenced the modern private law of other countries. The present Russian civil code is in part a translation of the Dutch one.
Economic implications
According to the legal origins theory promoted by some economists, civil law countries tend to emphasize social stability, while common law countries focus on the rights of an individual. In this theory, this has a considerable impact of different countries' financial development
For alternate uses of "civil law", see civil law.
Civil law is a codified system of law that sets out a comprehensive system of rules that are applied and interpreted by judges. It has its origins in Roman law. However, modern systems are descendants of the 19th century codification movement, during which the most important codes (most prominently the Napoleonic Code and the BGB) came into existence. The civilian system is by and large the most widely practiced system of law in the world.
Overview
Civil or civilian law is a legal tradition which is the base of the law in the majority of countries of the world, especially in continental Europe, but also in Quebec (Canada), Louisiana (USA), Japan, Latin America, and most former colonies of continental European countries. The Scottish legal system is usually considered to be a mixed system in that Scots law has a basis in Roman law, combining features of both uncodified Civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis and common law with medieval sources, further influenced by English law after the Union of 1707.
Simply, a civil law is a law enacted by a nation or state for its own jurisdiction.
In the United States, civil law is formally the basis of the law of Louisiana (as circumscribed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution), although in western and southwestern parts of the U.S., laws in such diverse areas as divorce and water rights show the influence of their Iberian civil-law heritage, being based on distinctly different principles from the laws of the northeastern states colonized by settlers with English common-law roots.
History
The civil law is based on Roman law, especially the Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian, as later developed through the Middle Ages by mediæval legal scholars.
Originally civil law was one common legal system in much of Europe, but with the development of nationalism in the 17th century Nordic countries and around the time of the French Revolution, it became fractured into separate national systems. This change was brought about by the development of separate national codes. The French Napoleonic Code and the German and Swiss codes were the most influential ones. Around this time civil law incorporated many ideas associated with the Enlightenment.
Because Germany was a rising power in the late 19th century when many poor Asian nations were introducing civil law, the German Civil Code has been the basis for the legal systems of Japan and South Korea. In China, the German Civil Code was introduced in the later years of the Qing Dynasty and formed the basis of the law of the Republic of China which remains in force in Taiwan.
Some authors consider that civil law later served as the foundation for socialist law used in Communist countries, which in this view would basically be civil law with the addition of Marxist-Leninist ideas.
Civil vs Common law
Civil law is primarily contrasted against common law, which is the legal system developed among Anglo-Saxon peoples, especially in England.
The original difference is that, historically, common law was law developed by custom, beginning before there were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after there were written laws, too, whereas civil law develops out of the Roman law of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis proceeding from broad legal principles and the interpretation of doctrinal writings rather than the application of facts to legal fictions.
In later times, civil law became codified as droit coutumier or customary law that were local compilations of legal principles recognized as normative. Sparked by the age of enlightenment, attempts to codify private law began during the second half of the 18th century (see civil code), but civil codes with a lasting influence were promulgated only after the French Revolution, in jurisdictions such as France (with its Napoleonic Code), Austria (see ABGB), Quebec (see Civil Code of Quebec), Spain (Código Civil), the Netherlands and Germany (see Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). However, codification is by no means a defining characteristic of a civil law system, as e.g. the civil law systems of Scandinavian countries remain largely uncodified, whereas common law jurisdictions have frequently codified parts of their laws, e.g. in the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code. There are also mixed systems, such as the laws of Scotland, Namibia and South Africa.
Thus, the difference between civil law and common law lies less in the mere fact of codification, but in the methodological approach to codes and statutes. In civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be derived. Courts thus have to reason extensively on the basis of general principles of the code, or by drawing analogies from statutory provisions to fill lacunae. By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly.
The underlying principle of separation of powers is seen somewhat differently in civil law and common law countries. In some common law countries, especially the United States, judges are seen as balancing the power of the other branches of government. By contrast, the original idea of separation of powers in France was to assign different roles to legislation and to judges, with the latter only applying the law (the judge as la bouche de la loi). Today, it is widely recognized that this is unworkable in practice. Case law (or, more properly, jurisprudence), plays a considerable role in virtually all civil law countries, even though the development of "judge-made law" through the rule of stare decisis is not formally recognized. As a practical matter, the dichotomy should thus not be overemphasized.
There are notable differences between the legal methodologies of various civil law countries. For example, it is often said that common law opinions are much longer and contain elaborate reasoning, whereas legal opinions in civil law countries are usually very short and formal in nature. This is in principle true in France, where judges cite only legislation, but not prior case law. (However, this does not mean that judges do not consider it when drafting opinions.) By contrast, court opinions in German-speaking countries can be as long as American ones, and normally discuss prior cases and academic writing extensively.
There are, however, certain sociological differences. Civil law judges are usually trained and promoted separately from attorneys, whereas common law judges are usually selected from accomplished and reputable attorneys. Also, the influence of academic writing by law professors on case law tends to be much greater in civil law countries.
Criminal procedure
Civil and common law system also differ considerably in criminal procedure. In general, the judge in a civil law system plays a more active role in determining the facts of the case. Most civil law countries investigate major crimes using a so-called inquisitorial system. Also, civil law systems rely much more on written argument than oral argument.
It is a common but incorrect belief that civil law systems do not offer the presumption of innocence, when in fact they do.
Subgroups
The term "civil law" as applied to a legal tradition actually originates in English-speaking countries, where it was used to lump all non-English legal traditions together and contrast them to the English common law. However, since continental European traditions are by no means uniform, scholars of comparative law and economists promoting the legal origins theory usually subdivide civil law into three distinct groups:
French civil law: in France, the Benelux countries, Spain and former colonies of those countries;
German civil law: in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Japan, South Korea and the Republic of China (Taiwan);
Scandinavian civil law: in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland.
Portugal and Italy have evolved from French to German influence, as their 19th century civil codes were close to the Napoleonic Code and their 20th century civil codes are much closer to the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Legal culture and law schools have also come near to the German system. The other law in these countries is often said to be of a hybrid nature.
The Dutch law or at least the Dutch civil code cannot be easily placed in one of the mentioned groups either, and it has itself influenced the modern private law of other countries. The present Russian civil code is in part a translation of the Dutch one.
Economic implications
According to the legal origins theory promoted by some economists, civil law countries tend to emphasize social stability, while common law countries focus on the rights of an individual. In this theory, this has a considerable impact of different countries' financial development
wushuren
综合杂谈名誉斑竹
- 注册
- 2002-02-10
- 消息
- 6,500
- 荣誉分数
- 9
- 声望点数
- 0
转自法学考研网：
法系是依据法律的历史渊源和传统以及由此形成的不同存在样式和运行方式，而对现存的和历史上存在过的各种法律制度所做的分类。凡是具有相同历史渊源和传统，具有相同或相近的存在样式和运行方式的法律制度，便被视为属于同一个法律家族，即法系。
资本主义国家的法律制度可以分为大陆法系和英美法系。大陆法系又称罗马法系、民法法系，是承袭古罗马法的传统，仿照《法国民法典》和《德国民法典》的样式而建立起来的各国法律制度的总称。英美法系又称英国法系、普通法系，是承袭英国中世纪法律传统而发展起来的各国法律制度的总称。
大陆法系与英美法系都是资本主义经济关系的产物，但由于受不同历史条件的影响，在存在样式和运行方式上也各具特点。
一、观点一
两者的主要区别包括以下几个方面：
（一）法律渊源不同
大陆法系是成文法系，是其法律以成文法即制定法的方式存在，它的法律渊源包括立法机关制定的各种规范性法律文件、行政机关颁布的各种行政法规以及本国参加的国际条约，但不包括司法判例。英美法系的法律渊源既包括各种制定法，也包括判例，而且，判例所构成的判例法在整个法律体系中占有非常重要的地位。
（二）法律结构不同
大陆法系承袭古代罗马法的传统，习惯于用法典的形式对某一法律部门所包含的规范做统一的系统规定，法典构成了法律体系结构的主干。英美法系很少制定法典，习惯用单行法的形式对某一类问题做专门的规定，因而，其法律体系在结构上是以单行法和判例法为主干而发展起来的。
（三）法官的权限不同
大陆法系强调法官只能援用成文法中的规定来审判案件，法官对成文法的解释也需要受成文法本身的严格限制，故法官只能适用法律而不能创造法律。英美法系的法官既可以援用成文法也可以援用已有的判例来审判案件，而且，也可以在一定的条件下运用法律解释和法律推理的技术创造新的判例，从而，法官不仅适用法律，也在一定的范围内创造法律。
（四）诉讼程序的不同
大陆法系的诉讼程序以法官为重心，突出法官的职能，具有纠问程序的特点，而且，多由法官和陪审员共同组成法庭来审判案件。英美法系的诉讼程序以原告、被告及其辩护人和代理人为重心，法官只是双方争论的“仲裁人”而不能参与争论，与这种对抗式程序同时存在的是陪审团制度，陪审团主要负责作出事实上的结论和法律上的基本结论，法官负责作出法律上的具体结论，即判决。
（五）其他方面
此外，两大法系在法律分类、法律术语、法学教育、司法人员录用和司法体制等方面，也有许多不同之处。
二、观点二
也有学者认为二者的差别大体上有以下几种：
1． 法律渊源方面的差别。在民法法系国家，制定法是主要的法律渊源，并不存在判例法。在普通法法系国家，判例被认为是正式意义的法律渊源之一，即上级法院的判例对下级法院在审判类似案件时有法律上的约束力。判例法和制定法是并行存在的。
2． 在适用法律技术方面的差别。在民法法系国家中，法官审理案件时，除确定事实外，首先是考虑有关制定法如何规定。在普通法法系国家，法官在审理案件时，除确定事实外，首先要考虑以前类似案件的判例。
3． 在法典编纂方面的差别。民法法系国家的一些基本法律一般采用较系统的法典形式。普通法系国家一般不倾向法典形式，它的制定法一般是单行的法律、法规。这一差异已日益缩小。
4． 在法律分类方面的差别。民法法系国家法律的基本分类是公法和私法，公法主要指宪法、行政法和刑法，诉讼程序法一般也属于公法。私法主要指导民法和商法。进入20世纪后，又有兼有公私法两种成分的法律，如社会法、经济法和劳动法等。普通法法系的基本分类是普通法和衡平法，在传统上并无公法和私法之分。
5． 在法律概念、术语上的差别。这一法系所使用的一些重要概念、术语，在另一法系中是没有的，或者同一个概念、术语，在两大法系中却具有不同含义。
6． 在哲学倾向上的差别。以上这些差别主要是由于两大法系的不同历史背景造成的，也体现了不同的哲学倾向。一般地说，民法法系较倾向理性主义，普通法法系较倾向经验主义。
法系是依据法律的历史渊源和传统以及由此形成的不同存在样式和运行方式，而对现存的和历史上存在过的各种法律制度所做的分类。凡是具有相同历史渊源和传统，具有相同或相近的存在样式和运行方式的法律制度，便被视为属于同一个法律家族，即法系。
资本主义国家的法律制度可以分为大陆法系和英美法系。大陆法系又称罗马法系、民法法系，是承袭古罗马法的传统，仿照《法国民法典》和《德国民法典》的样式而建立起来的各国法律制度的总称。英美法系又称英国法系、普通法系，是承袭英国中世纪法律传统而发展起来的各国法律制度的总称。
大陆法系与英美法系都是资本主义经济关系的产物，但由于受不同历史条件的影响，在存在样式和运行方式上也各具特点。
一、观点一
两者的主要区别包括以下几个方面：
（一）法律渊源不同
大陆法系是成文法系，是其法律以成文法即制定法的方式存在，它的法律渊源包括立法机关制定的各种规范性法律文件、行政机关颁布的各种行政法规以及本国参加的国际条约，但不包括司法判例。英美法系的法律渊源既包括各种制定法，也包括判例，而且，判例所构成的判例法在整个法律体系中占有非常重要的地位。
（二）法律结构不同
大陆法系承袭古代罗马法的传统，习惯于用法典的形式对某一法律部门所包含的规范做统一的系统规定，法典构成了法律体系结构的主干。英美法系很少制定法典，习惯用单行法的形式对某一类问题做专门的规定，因而，其法律体系在结构上是以单行法和判例法为主干而发展起来的。
（三）法官的权限不同
大陆法系强调法官只能援用成文法中的规定来审判案件，法官对成文法的解释也需要受成文法本身的严格限制，故法官只能适用法律而不能创造法律。英美法系的法官既可以援用成文法也可以援用已有的判例来审判案件，而且，也可以在一定的条件下运用法律解释和法律推理的技术创造新的判例，从而，法官不仅适用法律，也在一定的范围内创造法律。
（四）诉讼程序的不同
大陆法系的诉讼程序以法官为重心，突出法官的职能，具有纠问程序的特点，而且，多由法官和陪审员共同组成法庭来审判案件。英美法系的诉讼程序以原告、被告及其辩护人和代理人为重心，法官只是双方争论的“仲裁人”而不能参与争论，与这种对抗式程序同时存在的是陪审团制度，陪审团主要负责作出事实上的结论和法律上的基本结论，法官负责作出法律上的具体结论，即判决。
（五）其他方面
此外，两大法系在法律分类、法律术语、法学教育、司法人员录用和司法体制等方面，也有许多不同之处。
二、观点二
也有学者认为二者的差别大体上有以下几种：
1． 法律渊源方面的差别。在民法法系国家，制定法是主要的法律渊源，并不存在判例法。在普通法法系国家，判例被认为是正式意义的法律渊源之一，即上级法院的判例对下级法院在审判类似案件时有法律上的约束力。判例法和制定法是并行存在的。
2． 在适用法律技术方面的差别。在民法法系国家中，法官审理案件时，除确定事实外，首先是考虑有关制定法如何规定。在普通法法系国家，法官在审理案件时，除确定事实外，首先要考虑以前类似案件的判例。
3． 在法典编纂方面的差别。民法法系国家的一些基本法律一般采用较系统的法典形式。普通法系国家一般不倾向法典形式，它的制定法一般是单行的法律、法规。这一差异已日益缩小。
4． 在法律分类方面的差别。民法法系国家法律的基本分类是公法和私法，公法主要指宪法、行政法和刑法，诉讼程序法一般也属于公法。私法主要指导民法和商法。进入20世纪后，又有兼有公私法两种成分的法律，如社会法、经济法和劳动法等。普通法法系的基本分类是普通法和衡平法，在传统上并无公法和私法之分。
5． 在法律概念、术语上的差别。这一法系所使用的一些重要概念、术语，在另一法系中是没有的，或者同一个概念、术语，在两大法系中却具有不同含义。
6． 在哲学倾向上的差别。以上这些差别主要是由于两大法系的不同历史背景造成的，也体现了不同的哲学倾向。一般地说，民法法系较倾向理性主义，普通法法系较倾向经验主义。
wushuren
综合杂谈名誉斑竹
- 注册
- 2002-02-10
- 消息
- 6,500
- 荣誉分数
- 9
- 声望点数
- 0
不买最好的，专买最贵的。（牛克思主义中的剩余价值和剥削解释）
马克思主义中关于剩余价值和剥削的解释被很多人所熟知，也被很多左翼政党作为理论基础。牛克思主义基于马克思主义的进一步发展，必然无可逃避地解释剥削的问题，剩余价值的问题。根据当今社会的情况预测未来社会体制的走向，唯有如此才能担当起结果马克思主义未竟社会体制创新任务，把人类社会推向更高的阶段。
马克思主义解释说，剩余价值是在刨除了劳动力成本和生产资料成本以后剩余的价值。并且进一步说，剥削发生于资本家全部占有剩余价值，并且尽量压低工人的工资，降低劳动力力成本。这在西方国家18，19世纪是很普遍的现象。也就是说在制衡失效的社会体制和情况下，这是必然发生的现象，不论是奴隶社会，封建社会，还是资本社会。在这种情况下，阶级斗争将趋于激化。即马克思主义理论就是基于这种现象地解释。然后马克思试图以全部采用公有制来克制剥削。这是一种极端性的方法，在其他方面造成了严重的失败。
在生产关系，制衡相对健全的的法制社会下，剩余价值的剥削和劳动力成本的压缩会被尽量减少，剥削是可以被克制的。举例来说，失业者有失业保险，老人有养老基金，残疾人有保障基金等，最低工资，工伤保护条例，退休基金。这些生产关系机制的资金都来自于剩余价值。生产关系可以反过来作用于生产力，这也是马克思主义中的解释，而马克思忽略了这一点能发挥的作用。这就是马克思在《共产党宣言》中所不看好的资产阶级的社会主义。
在制衡健全的体制和生产关系下，会产生另外一种剥削，那就是有劳动能力的人，但不去劳动，而以群体政治效应，无偿享受制衡产生的社会福利，剥削剩余价值。这在完全的公有制和部分的公有制机构内，甚至表现为消极怠工，以消极方式试图扩大自己对别人的剥削。道德高尚的无产阶级理论就失败于这里。这是暗藏于当前生产关系的另外一种剥削。是当前生产关系不健全的一个表现。
为此，当前中国要解决的问题是解决制衡的时候不牺牲效率。而当前西方国家要解决的是如何消灭制衡机制伴生的剥削，也就是如何提高效率。在完美的平衡点，达成同时解决中国等发展国家的问题，也解决西方国家的问题，克服国家内部的阶级剥削也克服掉了民族和国家之间的剥削，那就是属于未来的社会体制，更先进的民主体制，在当前生产力下的制衡和效率的综合最大。这不是简单地用大政府小政府高税收和低税收就能解决的问题，也不是简单地用全部公有制或者依靠道德高尚的无产阶级就能解决的问题。
世界上的国家机构都是由私有制变成公有制的，既帝王和贵族私有变成了人民大众公有。任何不直接创造产值的国家机构均被认为是依靠社会生产的剩余价值来维持运转。其中的工作人员也存在劳动生产率问题，存在劳动力成本。大大低于社会平均生产率的部分，即可被认为是对社会生产的剩余价值进行了恶劣占用和对社会上的劳动者进行了剥削。相对于富有者的挥霍所表现出的剥削是个人原因造成的，这里却是由于体制不健全造成的，不是个人原因。不论是西方国家还是中国，都没有解决好这个体制问题。
拥有劳动能力，却躲避劳动恶意占用税收享受福利的情况，政府机构人员用腐败来更多占用剩余价值的情况，则既是体制原因也是个人原因。
腐败问题和消极怠工一样，被归入在生产关系内试图更多占有剩余价值来进行剥削。不论是西方体制还是中国体制，都面临这个问题。西方体制内还多一个有劳动能力但是拒绝劳动，而宁愿享受福利的剥削群体。中国体制内存在的资本直接剥削，因为制衡机制不健全，是比较严重的。中西，有区别点，也有共同点。
在充分的制衡体制下，在大多数情况下，某种工作的劳动力成本约=每个人的税后收入，维持劳动力再生产包括住宿，食物，教育，体育，休闲，艺术享受等。税收可以被认为全部由剩余价值产生，由雇主从剩余价值中预付。国家总体剩余价值约=国家全部税收+扩大再生产资金+极端富有的人不健康挥霍的资金和消费。
剥削的四个表现如下：
1，在税收供养下的政府和公有制部门出现的腐败。
2，具有劳动能力没到退休年龄而不劳动，宁愿享受福利占用税收。
3，公有制部门形成的消极和效率低下。
4，极端富有者的挥霍消费资金来源。
即牛克思主义中，不单纯以资本来定性剥削，而以对剩余价值的占用情况来定性剥削。
对于极端富有者，投入资本市场，股票基金，银行存款和生产资料的资金,不算对剩余价值的不合理占用。另外在一定程度上富有者也有劳动力再生产成本，例如投入教育，抚育子女，住宿，食物，艺术欣赏，体育休闲等。虽然其中的程度不好判断，但其中必然有挥霍现象存在。挥霍的程度，和人的修养程度，教育水平，世界观，都是有关系的。最终的恶劣挥霍才构成对剩余价值的实际恶劣占用，构成剥削。简单来说剥削是什么。剥削的一种表现就是不买最好的，专买最贵的。
