【作者】中國法與社會研究院

【內(nèi)容提要】

一、JUDGING AND JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPORARY ASIA

當(dāng)代亞洲的審判與判決

Judging and Judgment in Contemporary Asia: Editor’s Introduction to this Special Issue

David Engel，紐約州立大學(xué)布法羅分校

Abstract：

Although the figure of the wise judge may be a universal trope, respect is not automatically accorded every person who passes judgment on another. To be perceived as legitimate, judges must occupy an institutional status with the power to decide controverted cases and must have access to specialized or even sacred knowledge and moral authority. Historically, Asian judges could claim legitimacy through their connection to transcendent legal principles, such as dhamma or dao or shari’a. In contemporary Asia, however, conceptions of law and legal legitimacy have become pluralistic, contested, and contradictory. Judges may to some extent retain a connection to the sacred and the transcendent, yet that connection is no longer sufficient in itself to insulate their judgments—or their character—from criticism. How, then, can the “good judge” be distinguished from judges who fall short of the mark? In this Special Issue, five distinguished scholars explore the crisis of legitimation as it affects judging and judgment in Sri Lanka, India, China, Indonesia, and Thailand.

摘要：

雖然明智的法官形象可能是一個普遍的套路，但并不是每個對他人作出裁決的人都會自動得到尊重。為了被認(rèn)為是合法的，法官必須占據(jù)一個機(jī)構(gòu)地位，有權(quán)決定有爭議的案件，并且可以獲得專門的甚至是神圣的知識權(quán)威和道德權(quán)威。在歷史上，亞洲的法官可以通過他們與超驗的法律原則，如佛法、道法或伊斯蘭教法的聯(lián)系來主張合法性。然而，在當(dāng)代亞洲，法律和法律合法性的概念已經(jīng)變得多元化、富有爭議并矛盾重重。法官可能在某種程度上保留了與神圣和超驗的聯(lián)系，但是這種聯(lián)系本身已不足以使他們的判決——或者他們的品行——[1] 免受批評。那么，如何將“好法官”與那些不夠好的法官區(qū)分開來？在本期特刊中，五位杰出的學(xué)者探討了影響著斯里蘭卡、印度、中國、印度尼西亞和泰國的審判和判決的合法性危機(jī)。

Keywords: judge, judgment, legitimacy, sacred law, rule of law

關(guān)鍵詞: 法官，審判，合法性，神圣的法律，法治

Judging in the Buddha’s Court: A Buddhist Judicial System in Cotemporary Asia
在佛庭里審判：當(dāng)代亞洲的一個佛教司法系統(tǒng)

Benjamin Schonthal，新西蘭奧塔哥大學(xué)教授，奧塔哥法律與社會中心聯(lián)席主任

Abstract:

Drawing on textual and ethnographic research conducted over the last five years, this article analyses an important genre of judicial practice in South and Southeast Asia that has been almost entirely ignored by socio-legal scholars: Buddhist systems of judging. Using the judicial system of one monastic group in contemporary Sri Lanka as a case-study, it argues that Buddhist judging requires more than just the internalization of moral principles, as is often assumed. According to Buddhist (monastic)principles of judging, legal procedures—similar to those used in state legal settings—are equally essential. These procedures govern everything from making legal complaints, to the structuring oftrials, to determining jurisdiction, and many other topics. By examining Buddhist judicial systems, this article not only casts new light on the pluri-legal landscape of Asia; it also offers new reflections on the intersection of religion-based and state-based systems of law in the contemporary world.

摘要：

本文根據(jù)在過去五年里進(jìn)行的文本和民族志研究，分析了一個幾乎完全被法社會學(xué)學(xué)者忽視的南亞、東南亞司法實踐中的重要類型，即佛教的司法審判系統(tǒng)。本文以當(dāng)代斯里蘭卡一個僧侶團(tuán)體的司法系統(tǒng)為例，試圖說明佛教的審判不僅僅需要像人們常說的那樣將道德原則內(nèi)在化。根據(jù)佛教（寺院）的審判原則，宗教法與國家法同樣注重法律程序的重要性。這些程序規(guī)定了從提出法律申訴、到組織庭審、再到確定管轄權(quán)以及別的很多問題。通過對于佛教司法系統(tǒng)的研究，本文不僅對亞洲的多元法律格局提供了新的看法，而且對當(dāng)代世界基于宗教的法律體系和基于國家的法律體系的交集提供了新的反思。

Keywords: Buddhism, law, judges, courts, South Asia, Southeast Asia
關(guān)鍵詞：佛教，法律，法官，法院，南亞，東南亞

From Mythic Saviours to #MeToo at the Indian Supreme Court

從神話中的拯救者到印度最高法院中的#MeToo

Deepa Das Acevedo，阿拉巴馬大學(xué)法學(xué)院

Abstract:

The Indian Supreme Court has long enjoyed an almost mythic reputation for progressive and creative jurisprudence, but a series of recent scandals is beginning to erode this well-settled authority. One of the most troubling of these incidents has been an allegation of sexual harassment and intimidation by a Court staffer against then sitting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi. This article draws on media analysis and ethnographic research conducted in the immediate aftermath of the “CJI Scandal” to explore what it means for judges and judging in contemporary India. I argue that the justices’ response to the allegations are part of a broader shift in Indian judging. Far from being the product of an institution imbued with mythic qualities, judging in India is increasingly coming to represent an example of mythos, or “an assertive discourse of power and authority … something to be believed and obeyed.”

摘要：

長期以來，印度最高法院因為其進(jìn)步性和創(chuàng)造性的法律適用[2] 幾乎享有神話般的聲譽(yù)，但是最近的一系列丑聞?wù)_始侵蝕這一堅實的權(quán)威。其中最令人不安的事件之一是一名法院工作人員對時任印度首席大法官（CJI）蘭詹·戈戈伊（Ranjan Gogoi）的性騷擾和恐嚇指控。本文運(yùn)用在“CJI丑聞”發(fā)生后立即開展的媒體報道分析和民族志研究，探討它對于當(dāng)代印度的法官和審判意味著什么。我試圖說明，大法官們對指控的回應(yīng)是印度司法界更為廣泛的轉(zhuǎn)變的一部分。印度的審判遠(yuǎn)不是一個充滿神話色彩的機(jī)構(gòu)的產(chǎn)物，而是越來越代表了一個信念，或者說“權(quán)力和權(quán)威的獨(dú)斷話語……一種被相信和服從的東西”的例示。

Keywords: Indian Supreme Court, #MeToo, Ranjan Gogoi, judicial autonomy, sexual harassment

關(guān)鍵詞: 印度最高法院，#MeToo，蘭詹·戈戈伊，司法自主權(quán)，性騷擾

“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Metric Fixation and China’s Experiment in Quantified Judging

“所測即所得”：指標(biāo)依賴與中國的審判量化實驗

Kwai Hang Ng，加州大學(xué)圣地亞哥分校教授

Peter C.H. Chan，香港城市大學(xué)助理教授

Abstract:

This article analyzes the ambitious Case Quality Assessment System (CQAS) that the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) promoted during the first half of the 2010s. It offers a case-study of Court J, a grassroots court located in an affluent urban metropolis of China that struggled to come out ahead in the CQAS competition. The article discusses how the SPC quantified judging and the problems created by the metricization process. The CQAS project is analyzed as a case of metric fixation. By identifying the problems that doomed the CQAS, the article points out the challenges facing the a-u-t-h-o-r-i-t-a-r-i-a-n regime in subjecting good judging to quantitative output standards. The CQAS is a metric that judges judging. It reveals how judging is viewed by the party-state. The article concludes by discussing the legacy of the CQAS. Though it nominally ended in 2014, key indicators that it introduced for supervising judges are still used by the Chinese courts today. The CQAS presaged the growing centralization that the Chinese judicial system is undergoing today. Though the SPC has terminated the tournament-style competition that defined the CQAS, the metric remains the template used to evaluate judging.

摘要：

本文旨在分析中國最高人民法院（SPC）于2010 年代前期推行的宏偉的案件質(zhì)量評估體系（CQAS）。個案研究為位于中國某富裕大都市的基層法院J法院，該法院在CQAS的競賽中脫穎而出。本文討論了最高院是如何量化審判的，以及指標(biāo)化的過程中產(chǎn)生的問題。在本文中CQAS被作為一個指標(biāo)依賴的案例分析。在識別出種種令CQAS最終走向終結(jié)的問題后，本文將指出一個國家在將好的審判受制于量化標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時所面對的挑戰(zhàn)。CQAS是一個用來判斷審判的指標(biāo)體系。它揭示了黨國體系對于審判的理解。本文最后將討論CQAS的遺產(chǎn)。盡管CQAS在名義上于2014年結(jié)束，但是其用于監(jiān)督法官的關(guān)鍵指標(biāo)至今仍舊為中國的法院所沿用。CQAS預(yù)示了中國司法系統(tǒng)目前正在經(jīng)歷的集權(quán)化過程。盡管最高院終止了CQAS帶來的錦標(biāo)賽式競爭，但這個指標(biāo)體系依然是用來評估審判的一個模板。

Keywords: judging, judgement, metric, professionalism, China

關(guān)鍵詞: 審判，判決，測量指標(biāo)，職業(yè)主義，中國

What Makes a Good Judge? Perspectives from Indonesia

什么是好的法官？來自印度尼西亞的視角

Simon Butt, 悉尼大學(xué)亞洲及太平洋法律中心主任、印度尼西亞法教授

Abstract:

In May 2018, Artidjo Alkostar retired from the Supreme Court of Indonesia after a judicial career spanning almost two decades. Over this period, he presided over many of Indonesia’s most prominent and controversial criminal cases and became renowned for routinely rejecting corruption appeals and increasing prison sentences. In the celebratory publications that marked his retirement, Alkostar was held up as a model judge, with senior legal figures, including Supreme Court judges, singling out his strong work ethic, integrity, simplicity of character, and firmness. Curiously absent from the list of praiseworthy attributes were pre-requisites for effective judging, including adequate legal knowledge, transparent legal reasoning and decision-making, objectivity and avoiding the perception of bias. An analysis of Alkostar’s most notorious decisions suggests that he, and the judges who served with him, did not always clearly display these pre-requisites. This article considers what this says about judging in Indonesia and what might, in practice, be the defining characteristics of a good judge there.

摘要：

2018年5月，Artidjo Alkostar 在歷經(jīng)近二十年的司法生涯后，從印度尼西亞最高法院退休。在此期間，他裁判了許多印度尼西亞最著名和具爭議性的刑事案件，以常拒絕賄賂案件的上訴并且加重刑罰而聞名。在慶祝他退休的出版物中，Alkostar被奉為模范法官。包括最高法院法官在內(nèi)的許多資深法律人士均強(qiáng)調(diào)他良好的職業(yè)道德、正直、樸實和堅定的性格。有趣的是，在他的受到稱贊的特征中缺少進(jìn)行有效判決的前提，包括足夠的法律知識、透明的法律推理和決策過程、客觀性和避免偏見的影響等。對Alkostar作出的最臭名昭著的判決的分析表明，他以及協(xié)助他的法官并不一直能清楚地展示以上特征。本文將探討此發(fā)現(xiàn)對印度尼西亞裁判的揭示，以及在實踐中什么可能是印度尼西亞一名優(yōu)秀法官的決定性特征。

Keywords: Indonesia, courts, corruption, criminal law, judicial performance

關(guān)鍵詞：印度尼西亞，法院，腐敗，刑法，司法性能

Punitive Processes? Judging in Thai Lower Criminal Courts

懲罰性程序？泰國初級刑事法院的審理

Duncan McCargo，哥本哈根大學(xué)政治學(xué)教授、北歐亞洲研究所主任

Abstract:

This article examines how Thai courts of the first instance deal with run-of-the-mill criminal cases. How do judges deal with criminal trials of a rather routine nature, often involving defendants from ethnic minorities and reflecting the particular conditions in the provinces concerned? Drawing on participant observation and interview research conducted mainly in two provinces in different regions of the country, the article examines the challenges faced by judges and court officials in dealing with heavy caseloads in a highly bureaucratized system where acquittal rates are extremely low. How far do such cases shed light on how judging is carried out in the majority of Thai courts? What kind of challenges do Thai judges face in adjudicating minor but often messy cases in order to fulfil societal expectations in line with their own understandings of justice?

摘要：

本文探討了泰國初審法院是如何處理普通刑事案件的。法官如何處理相當(dāng)常規(guī)的，通常涉及少數(shù)民族被告并反映有關(guān)省份特殊情況的刑事審判？基于主要在該國不同區(qū)域的兩個省份進(jìn)行的參與式觀察和訪談研究，本文探討了法官和法院官員在一個高度官僚化的、無罪釋放率極低的系統(tǒng)中處理大量案件時面對的挑戰(zhàn)。這類案件在多大程度上揭示了大多數(shù)泰國法院的審理是怎樣進(jìn)行的？為了根據(jù)他們自己對于正義的理解來滿足社會的期待，泰國法官在裁決一些次要但是往往棘手的案件時會面臨怎樣的挑戰(zhàn)？

Keywords: lower courts, criminal cases, legal ethnography, hostile environment, Thailand

關(guān)鍵詞: 初級法院，刑事案件，法律民族志，敵對環(huán)境，泰國

二、LEGAL TRANSPLANTS IN CONTEMPORARY ASIA

當(dāng)代亞洲的法律移植

Legal Transplants in Contemporary Asia: Foreword

當(dāng)代亞洲的法律移植：前言

Setsuo Miyazawa，神戶大學(xué)、加州大學(xué)黑斯廷斯法學(xué)院

The term “l(fā)egal transplant” refers to the movement of a rule or a system of law from one jurisdiction to another. The term has been widely used in studies of legal development and change since it was introduced by Allan Watson, a Scottish scholar in Roman law and comparative law, in 1974.The jurisdiction in which the transplanted legal rule or legal system originated is usually called a “donor,” while the jurisdiction in which the given legal rule or legal system is transplanted is usually called a “recipient.”

“法律移植”一詞是指一個法律規(guī)則或者法律系統(tǒng)從某一法域向另一法域遷移的活動。自從1974年蘇格蘭的羅馬法和比較法學(xué)者艾倫·沃森（Allen Watson）[3] 采用這一概念以來，該術(shù)語已廣泛用于法律發(fā)展與變遷方面的研究。被移植的法律規(guī)則或法律系統(tǒng)的發(fā)源地通常被稱為“供體”，而被移植的法律規(guī)則或法律系統(tǒng)的接受方通常被稱為“受體”。[4] 

When legal transplant in an Asian jurisdiction was analyzed, the donor was usually a non-Asian jurisdiction or organization.However, Japan has been engaging in several legal assistance activities in Asian jurisdictions since the mid-1900s,while there is an evaluation about China under President Xi Jinping that “Western donors now face competition from China, not only for economic development projects, but in legal development assistance, too.”When I was involved in organizing sessions at the 4th Annual Meeting of the Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) that was to be held at Osaka University in Toyonaka, Japan, on 13–15 December 2019, I thought that inter-Asian legal transplants might be a good topic and circulated the following call for papers on 6 June 2019:

當(dāng)分析亞洲某個法域的法律移植時，供體通常來說是一個非亞洲的法域或組織。然而，日本自1900年代中期以來一直在亞洲法域從事一些法律援助活動。而當(dāng)下有一種對于習(xí)近平主席領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的中國的評價是：“西方供體正在面臨來自中國的競爭，這不僅在經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展項目中，也體現(xiàn)在法律發(fā)展的援助中?！碑?dāng)我參與組織于2019年12月13日至15日在日本豐中市大阪大學(xué)舉行的亞洲法律與社會協(xié)會（ALSA）第四屆年會會議時，我認(rèn)為亞洲內(nèi)部的法律移植可能是一個好話題，并在2019年6月6日發(fā)出了以下論文征集通知：

Asia used to be receivers of legal transplants, but recently some Asian countries, most notably China and Japan, have appeared as donors of legal transplants. In such donor activities, national, scholarly, and practical interests are intertwined, and different ideas on “the rule of law” in general or the most appropriate system for the given issue compete with each other. Those who are interested in this topic are kindly requested to send me a 500-word abstract by July 15.

亞洲曾經(jīng)是法律移植的繼受者，但最近一些亞洲國家（最明顯的是中國和日本）看上去已經(jīng)成為法律移植的供體。在這些供體的活動中，國家利益、學(xué)術(shù)利益和實際利益相互交織，關(guān)于一般意義上的“法治”或者面向特定問題的最恰切之制度的不同觀點相互競爭。誠望對這一主題感興趣的學(xué)者于7月15日前給我發(fā)一份500字的摘要。

Nine proposals were accepted and two sessions on legal transplant were held on 13 December 2019. Rob Leflar and Amy H. Shee kindly participated as discussants. This symposium issue includes three of those papers, each of which has been extensively revised after the meeting and through the peer-review process of this Journal.

九個論文草稿被接受并且在2019年12月13日舉辦了兩場關(guān)于法律移植的專題會議。羅布·勒弗拉（Rob Leflar）和艾米·H·希（Amy H. Shee）作為與談人欣然參加。本期專題會議特刊刊載了其中三篇論文，每篇論文都在會后進(jìn)行了廣泛修改并通過了本刊的同行評議程序。

Aziz Ismatov, in “Do Hybrid Legal Systems Matter in Foreign Legal-Aid Programmes? Some Philosophical Aspects of Legal Aid in Uzbekistan as Provided by the Donor States,” compares the relative effectiveness of donor activities by the three consecutive donor countries, namely the US, Germany (EU), and Japan, particularly within the hybrid structure of the Uzbek law, which bears many traces of the USSR legal system and an indigenous and informal Islamic law. Aziz states that while “ideas, values, and practices promoted by the US and, partly, EU legal-aid projects still lack adequate cultural compatibility and credibility with Uzbekistan’s government and society,” “Japanese legal-technical assistance/co-operation is fundamentally different” in that “it puts a specific emphasis on the mutual understanding of society, distinctive culture, and history,” including a “soft and flexible” attitude regarding “human rights and democracy.”

阿齊茲·伊斯馬托夫（Aziz Ismatov）在論文《混合型法律體系在外國法律援助計劃中重要嗎？供體國在烏茲別克斯坦提供法律援助的一些原理性[5] 問題》中，比較了美國、德國（歐盟）和日本連續(xù)三個供體國，尤其是在烏茲別克斯坦法律體系這種帶有很多蘇聯(lián)法律、本土法律以及非正式伊斯蘭法律的痕跡的混合結(jié)構(gòu)中，其法律移植活動的相對有效性。阿齊茲指出，雖然“美國以及部分的歐盟法律援助項目所倡導(dǎo)的觀點、價值觀和實踐與烏茲別克斯坦政府和社會之間仍然缺乏足夠的文化兼容性和可信度”，但是“日本的法律-技術(shù)援助/合作是根本不同的”，因為“它特別強(qiáng)調(diào)對社會、獨(dú)特文化和歷史的相互理解”，包括對于“人權(quán)和民主”采取“柔軟和靈活”的態(tài)度。

Matthew S. Erie and Do Hai Ha, in “Law and Development Minus Legal Transplants: The Example of China in Vietnam,” present a case-study of the legislative process of the SEZ (Special Economic Zone) Bill in Vietnam that was initiated in 2014 and suspended in 2018.Erie and Ha argue that “the most remarkable aspect of borrowing from the Chinese experience was the proactive involvement of the Vietnamese state in developing its SEZs” and that “the Vietnamese government received extensive technical support from Chinese experts.” However, they describe that “[t]he SEZs Bill triggered considerable criticism” and “the most vocal criticism normally came from economists, including domestic, diasporic, and sometimes international experts.” Finally, “[i]n May 2018, a month before the SEZs Bill was scheduled for passage, criticism against the Bill exploded,” “demonstrations involving hundreds or thousands of people took place in major cities and provinces across the country,” and “as a result, the SEZs Bill has been postponed indefinitely.” After presenting hypotheses regarding positive and negative factors on the successful legal transplants from China, the authors conclude that “if China is to emerge as a successful contender in the law-and-development market, it will likely resort to other means, in addition to legal transplants, to secure its investments abroad,” including

馬修·S·伊利（Matthew S. Erie）和都海哈（Do Hai Ha），在《法律和發(fā)展減去法律移植: 以中國在越南為例》一文中呈現(xiàn)了對越南經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)法案的立法過程的案例研究。該法案的立法進(jìn)程于2014年啟動但在2018年中止。伊利和哈認(rèn)為，“借鑒中國經(jīng)驗的最顯著方面是越南政府積極主動地參與發(fā)展其經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)”，“越南政府從中國專家那里得到了廣泛的技術(shù)支持”。然而，他們描述道：“經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)法案引發(fā)了相當(dāng)多的批評”，“最強(qiáng)烈的批評通常來自于國內(nèi)的、僑居的、有時還包括國際的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家?！弊罱K，“2018年5月，在《經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)法案》預(yù)定通過前一個月，針對該法案的批評爆發(fā)了”，“全國各主要城市和省份發(fā)生了涉及數(shù)百或數(shù)千人的示威活動”，“結(jié)果，《經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)法案》被無限期推遲”。在提出影響中國成功進(jìn)行法律移植的積極和消極因素的假設(shè)后，作者得出結(jié)論：“如果中國將成為法律和發(fā)展市場上的成功競爭者，除了法律移植外，它可能會采取其他的手段來保證其海外投資”，包括：

greater vertical integration of Chinese norms into international economic law and the building of cross-border transnational law, mainly in the form of inter-corporate agreements, international arbitration, and onshoring commercial disputes, each of which is formative of CLD [Chinese Law and Development].

以公司間協(xié)議、國際仲裁和商業(yè)糾紛回岸為主要形式，將中國的規(guī)范更大程度地縱向融入國際經(jīng)濟(jì)法，并建立跨境跨國法律，其中每一種都是CLD[中國法律與發(fā)展]的雛形。[6] 

Yuka Kaneko, in “Land-Law Reforms in Vietnam and Myanmar: ‘Legal Transplant’ Viewed from Asian Recipients,” presents a very different paper: she strongly criticizes the reform of positive law by the recipient government based on legal transplants in general for its destruction of traditional rights based on “l(fā)iving law” that has existed among people in affected areas. She traces the process of the introduction of the concept of “l(fā)and-use right” in Vietnam and the concept of “l(fā)and-use right for cultivation” in Myanmar, their impact to weaken traditional perpetual right for cultivation and to increase the transferability of farm land, and the rise of resistance and disputes involving affected farmers, with an additional analysis of the failure or insufficiency of mechanisms to solve or prevent disputes. A wide variety of donors appear, including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, Japan, the United Nations, and the US, but the problem is not specific donors, but the introduction of positive law that ignores traditional living law. The author states that

金子由香（Yuka Kaneko）的《越南和緬甸的土地法改革：從亞洲繼受國看'法律移植'》是一篇非常與眾不同的論文：她強(qiáng)烈批評繼受國政府基于法律移植進(jìn)行的實定法改革，因為它破壞了在受影響地區(qū)的人民中一直存在的基于“活法”的傳統(tǒng)權(quán)利。她追溯了越南引入“土地使用權(quán)”概念和緬甸引入“耕地使用權(quán)”的概念的過程以及它們產(chǎn)生的影響，包括削弱傳統(tǒng)的永久耕地權(quán)、增強(qiáng)了農(nóng)田的可轉(zhuǎn)讓性、以及導(dǎo)致涉及受影響農(nóng)民的反抗和糾紛增加，并且另外分析了解決或者預(yù)防糾紛的機(jī)制的失敗或者不足。各種各樣的供體出現(xiàn)了，包括世界銀行、亞洲開發(fā)銀行、日本、聯(lián)合國和美國，但是問題不在于特定的供體而在于實定法的引入忽略了傳統(tǒng)的活法。作者認(rèn)為，

[n]ow, in the era of the contemporary “l(fā)egal transplant,” donors intervene while loudly advocating the protection of small farmers and customary law but, in fact, their legal designs are leading to the commercialization of farmland, through the freedom of disposal, land-expropriation law, vacant-land nationalization, and city-planning law, which draws farmland into the land market.

現(xiàn)在，在當(dāng)代的“法律移植”時代，供體一邊干預(yù)一邊大力鼓吹保護(hù)小農(nóng)和習(xí)慣法，但是事實上，通過處置自由、土地征用法、空地國有化和城市規(guī)劃法，他們的法律設(shè)計正在導(dǎo)致農(nóng)田的商業(yè)化，從而將農(nóng)田引向土地市場。

She concludes the paper by arguing that

她在論文的結(jié)尾提出：

when the legislative processes of Asia and Africa are freed from the restraint of “l(fā)egal transplant,” it may be possible to save the self-contradiction of modern capitalist law from the constraint of belief in perpetual growth and social evolution, through which the human race is placing an excessive load upon the global environment.

當(dāng)亞洲和非洲的立法過程擺脫了 "法律移植 "的束縛，就有可能將現(xiàn)代資本主義法律的自相矛盾從對于永久增長和社會進(jìn)化的信仰中解救出來，正是在這種信仰下，人類對于全球環(huán)境造成了過度的負(fù)擔(dān)。

Together, these papers present careful case-studies of inter-Asian legal transplants as well as a call for the recognition of living law as a source of law superior to positive law based on legal transplants. I trust that readers will enjoy and learn much from these papers.

這些論文共同呈現(xiàn)了對于亞洲內(nèi)部進(jìn)行的法律移植的細(xì)致的案例研究，并且呼吁承認(rèn)活法是優(yōu)于基于法律移植的實定法的法律來源。我相信讀者會享受這些論文并且從中學(xué)到很多。

Keywords: Legal transplants, Asian law

關(guān)鍵詞: 法律移植，亞洲法

（腳注略）

Do Hybrid Legal System matter in Foreign Legal-Aid Programmes? Some Philosophical Aspects of Legal Aid in Uzbekistan as Provided by the Donor States

混合型法律體系在外國法律援助計劃中重要嗎？法律捐助國在烏茲別克斯坦提供法律援助的一些原理性問題

Aziz Ismatov，名古屋大學(xué)亞洲法律交流中心

Abstract:

Since the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and some states of Southeast Asia, the international financial institutions and individual donor states have initiated wide-scale legal-aid programmes to assist these states in their transition from socialism to a market economy. Whereas the aid from financial institutions vis-a?-vis recipient states is often agreed upon specific conditionalities, the donor states design their foreign legal aid according to individual preferences, although sometimes with references to universal goals. Currently, various donor states provide legal aid to Uzbekistan. Given the fact that Uzbekistan is the former Soviet Republic that still bears multiple traces of a socialist legal system and additionally integrates indigenous informal law, this research provides an analysis of how different donor states base their legal-aid activities on entirely different philosophies and levels of gravity, and how receptive the hybrid structure of Uzbekistan’s law is towards such aid.

摘要：

自從東歐、前蘇聯(lián)和東南亞一些國家的社會主義衰落以來，國際金融機(jī)構(gòu)和一些法律捐助國啟動了大規(guī)模的法律援助計劃，以協(xié)助這些國家從社會主義向市場經(jīng)濟(jì)過渡。金融機(jī)構(gòu)對于法律受援國的援助往往是以達(dá)到特定條件為前提達(dá)成的。法律捐助國盡管有時會參考普遍性的目標(biāo)，但往往是根據(jù)它們的自身偏好來設(shè)計對外的法律援助。目前，各種法律捐助國向烏茲別克斯坦提供法律援助。鑒于烏茲別克斯坦是前蘇維埃共和國，它至今保留著社會主義法律體系的多種痕跡，并且還融合了本土的非正式法律。本研究分析了不同的法律捐助國是如何將其法律援助的活動建立在完全不同的原理和不同的程度[7] 之上，以及烏茲別克斯坦法律的混合結(jié)構(gòu)對于此類援助的接受程度如何。

Keywords: Donor states, international financial institutions, foreign aid

關(guān)鍵詞: 法律援助國，國際金融機(jī)構(gòu)，外國援助

Law and Development Minus Legal Transplant : The Example of China in Vietnam
法律與發(fā)展的法律移植缺位：以中國在越南為例

Matthew S. Erie，英國牛津大學(xué)中國研究中心副教授

Do Hai Ha，英國牛津大學(xué)中國研究中心博士后

Abstract:

Legal transplants are broadly recognized as one of the main mechanisms by which donor states influence the legal development of recipient states. The experience of China, however, challenges convention. While, in recent years, China has been one of the largest capital-exporting countries in the world and has mobilized law to protect its investment in high-risk recipient states, legal transplants have, to date, not played a major role in China’s approach to law and development. This article examines this puzzle through the case of China’s participation in formulating Vietnam’s 2018 SEZ Bill. In doing so, this article sets forth a number of hypotheses as to why Chinese law has thus far not assumed the form of legal transplant. The example of the SEZ Bill demonstrates how Chinese legal transplants depend as much on the “pull” of recipient states as they do on the “push” of the donor. The case-study of the SEZ Bill raises important questions not only for Chinese law and development, but also, more generally, for the viability of “second-order” legal transplants: those from an Asian donor to an Asian recipient.

摘要：
法律移植被廣泛認(rèn)為是捐助國影響受援國法律發(fā)展的一種主要機(jī)制。然而，中國經(jīng)驗卻挑戰(zhàn)了這一認(rèn)知。誠然，近些年中國已經(jīng)成為世界上最大的資本輸出國之一，并且動員法律來保護(hù)其在高風(fēng)險受援國的投資，但是迄今為止，法律移植在中國的法律與發(fā)展方案中并沒有發(fā)揮主要作用。本文通過中國參與制定越南2018年經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)法案的案例來研究這一謎題。在此過程中，本文提出了一些假設(shè)來闡明中國法迄今尚未采取法律移植的形式的原因。經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)法案的例子表明，中國的法律移植既取決于捐助國的“推力”，也同等取決于受援國的“拉力”。經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)法案的案例研究不僅對中國的法律與發(fā)展提出了重要的問題，而且更廣泛地對“二階”法律移植的可行性進(jìn)行了探討，即從亞洲捐助國到亞洲受援國的法律移植問題。

Keywords: law and development,legal transplant,China,Vietnam,industrial policy,SEZ

關(guān)鍵詞：法律與發(fā)展，法律移植，中國，越南，產(chǎn)業(yè)政策，經(jīng)濟(jì)特區(qū)

Land-Law Reforms in Vietnam and Myanmar: “Legal Transplant” Viewed from Asian Recipients

越南和緬甸的土地法改革：從亞洲接受者角度看“法律移植”

Yuka Kaneko，神戶大學(xué)教授、社會系統(tǒng)創(chuàng)新中心

Abstract:

This paper focuses on the conflict of norms in the interface between the “transplanted” formal law and the local social norms in the land-law reforms in Vietnam and Myanmar, each representing different legal families, while sharing commonness in that both have attempted law-making in the post-colonial independence period in order to restore the basis of the livelihoods of the local population. Both of the legal concepts of “l(fā)and-use right” (quyen su dung dat) in Vietnam and “l(fā)and-use right for cultivation” (loat paing kwint) in Myanmar have been the product of law-makers’ restorative attempts at farmland security, while intentionally avoiding usage of the term “ownership” that would result in the capitalist transaction of land as a commodity. However, the contemporary land-law reforms led by donor-oriented “l(fā)egal transplant” in these countries have resulted in the plunder of such policy, by reintroducing the same mechanisms of land exploitation as existed in the colonial days. Roaring protests of the local agricultural population seem to be a rising-up of the social norm descended from the immemorial past as an unwritten Constitution to bring an end to the centuries-long movement of “l(fā)egal transplant” of the modern capitalist law.

摘要：

本文著眼于越南和緬甸的土地法改革中“移植”的正式法與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?guī)范間的交互。這兩個國家代表了不同的法律譜系，但共性在于它們都試圖在后殖民獨(dú)立時期立法以恢復(fù)當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦纳嫽A(chǔ)。越南的“土地使用權(quán)”（quyen su dung dat）和緬甸的“耕種土地使用權(quán)”（loat paing kwint）這兩個法律概念皆是立法者試圖恢復(fù)農(nóng)地安全，同時有意避免使用“所有權(quán)”一詞，以免土地被作為一種商品開展資本主義交易的產(chǎn)物。然而，在這些國家中由法律捐助國所主導(dǎo)的“法律移植”所引起的當(dāng)代土地法改革，卻重新引入了與殖民時期相同的土地剝削機(jī)制，從而導(dǎo)致了對這一政策的掠奪。當(dāng)?shù)剞r(nóng)業(yè)人口的激烈抗議，仿佛是遠(yuǎn)古時代以來作為一種不成文憲法傳承的社會規(guī)范，為了結(jié)束長達(dá)數(shù)個世紀(jì)的現(xiàn)代資本主義法律的“法律移植”運(yùn)動而重新抬頭。

Keywords:legal transplant,Vietnam land law,Myanmar land law,land-law reform,law and development

關(guān)鍵詞: 法律移植，越南土地法，緬甸土地法，土地法改革，法律與發(fā)展