issue174 calsunny作业，coffee 小组，十分不适应的法律题材，渴望建议！

calsunnyUID：2163431

174. "Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."
法律不应该是僵化或固定的，而应该根据不同的环境、时期和地点而足够灵活。
法律的灵活性

立场：
提纲：一，从制定法律的目的来讲，法律应该是固定的：包括法律规范，法律的适用和法律效果的固定；
      二，法律也需要一定的灵活性由於快速发展和高度复杂的社会：时代的发展和地区的差异要求法律是灵活的；
      三，法律的固定与灵活都是相对的概念，关键是达到制定法律的初衷，即维护社会的稳定，保护人民的权利。
稳定和灵活都有利於法律目标的实现，可以互相弥补

What laws should be, stable or flexible? The question is not so simple that we could deliberately know that the former or the later is the answer. If laws are defined as the norms which imply the imposition and obedience of obligation, they are relatively stable. If laws are used to maintain the stability of society and the benefits of the people, they are flexible. Therefore it is unsuitable to overemphasize the importance of each side. The final goal of laws calls for a balance between stability and flexibility of laws

Keeping fixed or rigid is indispensable for laws during one period of time, which benefits to consolidate the systems of both laws and society. In personal level, laws help people to make prediction of the consequence of their behaviors and figure out the legal obligation and rights exerted upon them by the legal system. In organization level, leaders depend on laws build a well-defined frame to obey by the employees within the groups. To the society, the government uses laws to remain harmony and propensity. Hence, once be legislated, laws must keep stable. The contents of laws should be stable firstly so that the people know what they could do and what could not. Furthermore, it is necessary to keep the laws’ implement fixed such as the subjective and objective of laws. The stability of laws’ effect should be encompassed. If one person trespass others’ authorities, he must compensate for the damage even is put into the prison according to the criminal laws. Since laws are established in forms of general rules regulating people's actions, if laws are drawn up today and changed tomorrow, the people will not know how to or what comply with . Living such a society, the people would not be harmony with others and finally impair the stability of society.  

Meanwhile, it is necessary for laws to keep moderately flexible due to the rapid and complex developments of our society. Laws were designed the day before to adjust the people’s behavior of today and tomorrow, therefore they somewhat lag behind of times, not to mention the fleeting changes of the present society. The criminal of internet, as an example, is the eminence of recent years. It is impossible to request the laws forebode this kind of things before the internet is invented. Therefore, the changing times demand emending the original laws or legislating new laws flexibly. Secondly, there are remarkable diversity among the different states such as the economy or politics and culture. Even within one state, the development is unparalleled and there are so many complicated fields. It is unrealistic to enact one law to request all people to comply without considering the circumstances and places. There are local law and national law in China. California, one west state of USA, its law consists of 29 codes, covering various subject areas. The phenomena illustrate that in the international society, the people have noticed that laws should be flexible enough to the development of one county or region.

The conception of stability and flexibility are relative for laws. The stable does not means conservative and unchangeable but means consistent within one specific time. While the flexibility does not mean laws’ mutation or overturn the original laws but mean update or change gradually. In feudal society of China, when one regime is subverted, the new dynasty will set up its own law system then keep relatively stable for the whole domination. However, the new system is based on the old one and improves the unreasonable aspects at that time. Actually, the crucial point is whether laws are good to maintain the benefits of the people and the stability of whole society as for the stability or flexibility of laws.

In sum, relative stable and moderately flexible are both conducive to get the goals of laws, and they can ameliorate each other. In one democracy society during peace time, it is better to keep the conformity and harmony of stability and flexibility of laws.

我写得都快掉眼泪了，实在不知道怎么写，超级郁闷！

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-23 at 19:30 ]

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

我找的例子:

基尔希集团 Kirch group
拜仁慕尼黑俱乐部 FC Bayern Munchen club

拜仁慕尼黑俱乐部和基尔希集团之间暗中签订涉及巨额收入的秘密合同事件将在下周初由德国足球联赛委员会盖棺定论。该委员会称，法律调查正在紧锣密鼓地进行。不过，拜仁俱乐部通过律师施克哈德之口放出风声，拒不接受联赛委员会的任何处罚。这位律师称：“拜仁没有丝毫过错。既没有违反德国足协的规定，也没有触犯联赛委员会的条例。从法律角度看，任何形式的处罚对拜仁来讲都是不可接受的！”




[德甲]拜仁钻尽法律空子 利用一切机会壮大自己
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sports.tom.com 2003年03月05日10时43分??来源:体坛周报??全宏清


拜仁的“基尔希秘密合同事件”被曝光后，引来了众多非议，但拜仁俱乐部的高层们似乎不急不忙。“我们就是要钻尽法律的空子。”这话出自拜仁经理赫内斯之口。难怪拜仁敢与基尔希集团签下秘密合同，如果基尔希集团不破产，这事很难让人发现。然而拜仁干这种事远不止第一次，“钻法律的空子”可是拜仁的“优良传统”，赫内斯经理大可为之自豪，一方面是拜仁的聪明智慧，另一方面是为了他自己。


　　1992年就曾卑鄙挖球员


　　“钻法律空子”的传统可追溯到1992年拜仁要引进前队长赫尔默的时候，当时赫尔莫在多特蒙德踢球，他与多特蒙德的合约有一个附加条款，即在那个赛季末只要有外国球队愿出300万马克转会费，赫尔默就可以转会。赫尔莫按期通知多特蒙德要中断与球队的合约关系，然而不久后，他要去的目的地不是外国而是拜仁的秘密被曝光。但多特蒙德经理迈耶坚决排除他转会德甲其他球队的可能性。


　　赫尔默发誓，即使通过在外国球队短暂停留（法国欧塞尔队），他也要达到最终转会拜仁的目的，假如多特蒙德不让步，拜仁副主席鲁梅尼格则操纵“一种直接转会”的交易。赫内斯将这种策略形容为“周旋模式”。尽管多特蒙德经理大骂对方“卑鄙”，但最后还得与拜仁谈成这笔交易：赫尔默在1992年7月直接转会拜仁，转会费当然不止300万，而是750万马克。


　　拜仁的高层们只要选定目标，至于采取什么手段，那是无关紧要的。他们看得很透：只要能获得好结果，至于手段，过几天后谁还感兴趣、还会去追究呢？


　　对策：辟谣、反击、承认小错


　　与基尔希秘密签合同的事，拜仁的高层们也这么看：德国足球职业联盟处理完之后，这事很快会被遗忘，赫内斯才不为拜仁的形象担心呢。正如2001年拜仁为抢夺凯尔和代斯勒，竟早早地给凯尔和代斯勒分别汇去150万和2000万马克，这是违反转会规定的，当时被曝光后曾引起很大风波，然而今天谁还对之感兴趣呢？


　　拜仁对批评采取的对策总是同一个：在开始被怀疑时，拜仁高层会出来辟谣，要么对之不加评论；然后对来自各方批评四处出击，他们甚至还骂别人是伪君子，装腔作势；但当事情全部被曝光后，在铁的证据面前无可否认之时，他们退一步承认自己犯了一些并无原则问题的小错：称给代斯勒和凯尔的钱是“贷款”，赫尔默转会的事是“钻尽了法律的空子”，与基尔希集团秘密签约之事为“鸡毛蒜皮的、微不足道的形式上的小错”。


　　若把拜仁这种经营哲学称为不讲规矩还谈不上，或者最多只能说他们是在打擦边球。从另一方面说，他们比竞争对手更狡猾、果断，当然这个前提是球队的战绩要多年称雄足坛才行。在强权与道德，在无耻与智慧之间永远也不可能平衡，拜仁的例子远可推广到社会其他领域。


　　利用一切机会壮大自己实力


　　拜仁在这方面的例子远不止以上说的几件大事，赫内斯以“主动出击”出了名。“对道姆我是有意识地发动进攻的。”道姆吸毒的秘密最先由赫内斯捅穿，他现在承认是有意点破的。“勒沃库森一百年也不可能走到拜仁前面去。”在2000年那场拜仁与勒沃库森的大战之前，赫内斯故意这样说，他早就算计到道姆不会反击他，“相反他（道姆）会把火气往球队身上发，比赛开始10分钟后勒沃库森球员连得4张黄牌，最后我们轻松地以2比0拿下对手。在这个时刻我感觉特别好。”赫内斯毫不掩饰自己的得意。


　　另外，拜仁有在德甲专挖墙脚的名声。在过去15年内，拜仁从德甲对手手上直接挖走了18名绝对主力，如1989年从科隆队挖走于尔根·科勒，1991年从凯泽斯劳滕队挖走拉巴迪亚，1995年从不莱梅队挖走赫尔佐格，去年从勒沃库森挖走巴拉克和泽·罗伯托，还有埃芬博格、埃尔伯、卡恩、绍尔、科瓦奇兄弟等等，举不胜举。这一招非常绝，等于双倍强大了自己。


　　同时，拜仁还利用自己的权势从球场外壮大自己的势力，按他们的哲学说：“只有当老大很顺时，老小们才会受益。”贝肯鲍尔是德国足协副主席，也是2006年世界杯组委会主席，鲁梅尼格是欧洲豪门俱乐部同盟G14的喉舌，拜仁靠他们来倡导对自己有利的决策：借德国足球职业联盟来分裂德国足协，把同时上场比赛的非欧盟外援限制从3位上升到5位，等等。


　　最后再回到与基尔希集团秘密签约这事上来。1999－2000赛季，拜仁就反对将德甲电视转播权打包统一卖出，因为他们要向收费电视台直播自己的比赛。“我们要在2000年7月1日以后，自己转卖比赛的电视转播权。”当时赫内斯就对慕尼黑的报纸说。可是上周一，赫内斯却又在巴伐利亚电视台毫不犹豫地说：“我从不反对统一卖出电视转播权。”或许正为因如此，才会有秘密合同之事。但有一点是肯定的，拜仁这样的故事绝不止这一个。







GoGoGo小组的:

每个人都拥有一种基于正义的不可侵犯性，这种不可侵犯性即使崐以社会整体利益之名也不能逾越。因为，正义否认了一些人分享更大利益而剥夺另崐一些人的自由是正当的，不承认许多人享受的较大利益能绰绰有余地补偿强加于少崐数人的牺牲。

[美]约翰·罗尔斯《正义论》第1页。

--------------------------------------

http://www.blogms.com/blog/CommL ... gLogCode=1000311492

实践公民不服从的代表人物苏格拉底、梭罗、甘地、马丁.路德.金在这个问题上的经典言论，又有当代西方最重要的研究成果，如，汉娜.阿伦特、罗尔斯、德沃尔金的理论.

公民不服从是宪政体制下处于少数地位的公民表达异议的一种方式。它是违法行为，但却基于对法律的忠诚，是出于良知、出于对正义的关注而选择的违法。它诉诸于多数的正义感；所违反的对象则如前所说，是不正义的法律或政府政策。可以说，公民不服从是一种体现公民道德理想的行动。基于所要体现的理想，它以公开性和非暴力性为特征。关于公开性，马丁.路德.金作过很好的表述：“违反不公正法律的人，必得公开地违反，心怀爱意地违反，甘愿接受惩罚。”



其二，通过公开违反某项法律，把问题推到公众面前，迫使公众正视问题并吁请公众注意到正义正在遭到破坏，宪政原则正在被侵凌。至于一般采取非暴力方式乃基于对暴力含有的不道德性和破坏性的认识，所以从道德角度看，仍然出于对目的必须与手段相一致的道德理念的执守。对于公开性和非暴力性所依据和展现的道德理念，马丁.路德.金在抨击极权主义的伦理相对主义时提出了很深刻的见解。

二十世纪五六十年代的美国民权运动中，黑人民众以大规模的公民不服从运动去冲击种族隔离制度，用制造危机的尖锐方式把这一制度的罪恶摆在了全社会面前，使人们不能再回避。各阶层、各种族，尤其是许多白人受到强烈震撼，在良知和正义感驱使下加入了声援队伍。这场黑人为争取平等公民权而进行的斗争最终胜利了，种族隔离制度废除了。然而，在决策层面必须遵守多数原则的美国，如果没有在人口中占据绝大多数的白人的支持，这场斗争是不会以胜利告终的。但假如人们良知沉睡，共同正义感这笔集体财富已经荡然无存，即使多数裁决这一民主政治的基本规则仍然生效，正义感的匮乏却使人自私、冷漠，更难以有超越个人或集团私利的胸襟，多数原则只会导向多数暴政。



以公民不服从表达异议的人对法律的忠诚不光体现在违反恶法时所抱的目的上，也体现在甘受惩罚，决不规避惩罚。在这方面，苏格拉底是一个典范。他坚决捍卫了探求真理的自由和言论自由，又泰然接受了由此而招致的死刑，留下了尊重法律的精神。

譬如美国黑人民权运动所反对的种族隔离法这一罪恶的奴隶制的遗留物，作为差别性立法，它直接违背法律必须具普遍性这一基本法治精神，是对美国宪法的公民平等原则的尖锐讽刺。该法赋予一些人优越感，给另一些人以低劣感。正如马丁.路德.金所说，它表现了人的悲剧性分离。被判为低劣的那部分公民不得不夜以继日地纠缠于自己是黑人的事实，不是在忍受歧视中耗尽自尊，就是陷入反社会的极端情绪之中。这样的法律，它的存在本身就是一种罪恶。在黑人民众通过正常诉求渠道要求废止该法而无效的情况下，以公民不服从运动来反抗它便势所必然。运动的最终成功事实上割掉了美国社会的一个毒瘤，使宪法原则真正名致实归。--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/unjustlaw.asp

"An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".

The problem is that while the law is a matter of public record, justice is an intensely personal matter. What one person regards as just may strike another as an unwarranted imposition. This is why we need law; if we all behaved according to our personal standards of morality, anarchy would rule. While we may have our own views about the justice of particular laws, we generally accept that some rules must apply universally. If we are to follow Martin Luther King's exhortation to resist unjust laws, then, there must be an unusual type or degree of injustice to justify that. What kind of injustice might do so?


            To begin, however, I believe it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (King, 3) According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4)

            The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law.

            Singer gives two typical arguments in favor of obeying these unjust laws. I will address these arguments one at a time. The first argument says that, “By disobeying [a law] I set an example for others that may lead them to disobey too. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war.” (Singer, 297)





King also says, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” It seems I have arrived at the same conclusion King has. It is not only moral, but a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. In fact, it seems King uses something similar in meaning to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. King’s quote, as I stated earlier, is, “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4) Kant’s Categorical Imperative says, “Act only on the maxim through which you could at the same time will that it should be universal law.” This is also known as the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” To be a just law, it has to be universal in its application.



King makes a very good distinction between Civil Disobedience and breaking the law. He says, “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with willingness to accept the penalty.” This brings about some of the stipulations that go along with Civil Disobedience.

King himself says there are four steps to Civil Disobedience: Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. (King, 1) King also argues that the direct action must be non-violent, which I believe is an integral part of Civil Disobedience.

The criteria of a valid Civil Disobedience movement, then, are as follows. It must: Have a provable injustice, fail at negotiation before action is taken, be a pure act of true belief, and then take non-violent direct action.

This point begs the question, “What about violent disobedience?” This is a difficult question when confronted with the Revolutionary War, a large act of what could be called violent Civil Disobedience. I would argue that violent Civil Disobedience is never permissible. In an event like the Revolution, where there is no redress and there is no hope of non-violent Civil Disobedience achieving the desired goal, then the acts become a Revolution.



As long as the principle of non-violence is followed, along with the other guidelines, and breaking the law is the last resort, Civil Disobedience should be expected in a Country that was founded on strict moral principles about how a government should run. Any law that is contrary to those principles should be overthrown. The Declaration of Independence makes that abundantly clear. We must maintain Liberty. Thomas Jefferson said it best in a letter to William Smith, 1787; “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Patriots) To maintain liberty, we are obliged to stand up when there is injustice.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In America in 1849, as the Civil War over slavery loomed, Henry David Thoreau wrote his great essay On Civil Disobedience. At its core was the thesis that in the face of unjust law it is not only the right but the duty of good men to resist such law.

The standard moral position is summarised by Professor Ronald Dworkin in Taking Rights Seriously (1977): "In a democracy... each citizen has a general moral duty to obey all the laws... He owes that duty to his fellow citizens, who obey laws that they do not like, to his benefit. But this general duty cannot be an absolute duty, because even a society that is in principle just may produce unjust laws and policies, and a man has duties other than his

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
Mohandas Gandhi

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Kito小组的:

============Issue 17法律资料===========

第一编 引论 第二章 恶法亦法
by 杨仁寿

　　法律为社会规范之一种，法官适用法律时，不得以法律规定不明确、不完备或欠缺为借口，而不予受理，更不得以此为拒绝裁判之理由。在刑事审判，采罪刑法定主义，法无明文不为罪；在民事审判，依“民法”第1条规定：“民事，法律未规定者，依习惯，无习惯者依法理”，均有受理、裁判之义务。1977年台再字第42号判例称：“法院不得以法无明文规定而拒绝裁判”云云，洵属的沦。
　　然则，法律之“善”或“恶”，法官有无审查之权？一般而方，法官为一司法者，并非立法者，不得借口法律为一“恶法”，而拒绝适用。盖法官敬动辄以此为理由，拒绝适用法律，将使人民法律生活之安定破坏无遗，甚至侵及立法权，与法治主义之精神有违。惟若贯彻前项主张，即会派生“恶法亦法”，“法律就是法律”等原则，致令法律僵化。
　　如所周知，制定法律或修改法律之程序，至为繁杂，绝非短期间所能完成，因之，法律苟非“恶”至令人无法忍受之程度，法官仍应运用法律之阐释方法，对此“恶法”加以阐释，使之适合社会之要求，俾能贯彻法律目的或社会目的。盖此时“法律”在外表上虽为“恶法”，在实质上则非为恶法也。
　　“恶法”一词，乍见之，令人生厌，仿佛充满惨苛的意味。事实上，基在“法的安定性”上所扮演的角色，厥功至伟。设其不善之程度，人民犹可忍受，尚未抒解，使之合于“法的目的性”。慎子曰：“法虽不善，犹愈于无法”，在此范围内，仍有其下面的意义。换言之，恶法亦法必须具有以下二种性质：
　　其一，必须为法律，亦即法“不善”之程度，尚与正义相悖过甚，运用法律阐释方法加以阐释，仍切合社会之要求，此时“恶法”不过徒具其为恶之处观而已，在实质上仍与其他“善法”无殊。苟法律之恶之程度，忆恶于“无法”，非运用法律阐释方法所能济事，不过徒具“法律”之形貌也，应认“恶法非法”，因此，法官不但应拒绝适用，且一般执法人员亦应拒绝执行，若犹昧著良知，忽视正义，遽予适用或执行，则适用或执行本身就是一种“非正义”的行为。
　　举例言之，第二次世界大战末期，纳粹德国惨无人道、胡作非为，屠杀犹太人，射杀胡为，无所不用其极，其所颁布之“法律”，殆恶于无法，与正义相悖可谓至于极端，故甚多勇气之法官均拒予适用，其下场当然受到各种不同之迫害。有一脍炙人口之案件，迄今为犹太人所津津乐道，在1945年，有位纳粹官员专司“打击敌人”各种任务。有一天侦悉其妇与其夫在家藏匿犹太人，乃将该犹太人逮捕，其夫见状图逃，当场为该纳粹官员击毙。迨纳粹战败，某妇于1951年自诉该纳粹官员杀人，被告虽辩称：纳粹德国于1945年3月曾颁紧急命令，规定每一位德国武装人员，对于逃犯，负有不经审判即加射杀义务，其为执行公务，枪击自诉人之夫，实依“法”行事云云，却为西德联邦最高法院所不采，认紧急命令已与正义相悖，不再是“法律”，仍对被告予以论罪科刑。
　　其二，此种“恶法”须具“法的目的性”。过分强调法律系一种“手段”，虽有违法治主义，惟实质上，法律之定制鲜无目的，其目的为何，一言以蔽之，乃在督促人类朝着“人类本质存在”之“共通善”或“正义”而发展。法官在现实“法律拘束之下，仍有运用法律以达成目的之余地，故谓法律第一种达成目的之手段，实不为过。”苟认为“法律就是法律”，法律本身即有目的，未免忽视法律之本质。法官在解释法律行为时亦复如是，就以当事人所欲达到之目的的合理解释之，并以习惯及任意法规补充之，至诚实信用原则则应自始至终介入其间，作为修正或补充目的、习惯或任意法规等标准所决定之表示内容，庶不失当事人之真实。
　　换言之，法官解释法律行为，应依诚信景当事人这意思表示内容，衡其所欲达到之目的，习惯及任意法规，以探求其表示应有之内容，为合理之解释或补充。法律行为之解释，既在确定构成法律行为要素之意思表示之意义，则于意思表示不明确或不完整时，自须透过解释方法予以阐明或补充，始能获窥当事人已为表示之正确含义，或当事人所为表示之合理的意思。不仅如此，当事人表示行为所具意义，欠缺合理时，亦须变更其表示行为之表示意义，使之合理化。所谓“恶约亦约”云云，自不能任其存在。
　　莎士比亚名作《威尼斯商人》中“法庭”一幕，最足使习法者悸然心动，其故在此。其大意如下：有意大利士绅安东尼，为至友巴萨尼欧与名媛包雪霞结婚，代向犹太人夏洛克高利借贷3000元，约定准时清偿，若逾期不还，愿割肉一磅以示罚。约成，立借据一纸以为凭。讵知，届期安东尼所经营之货舱，迟迟不归，致未能照约履行。后虽愿忆20倍之借款偿还，冀免割肉之痛，仍不为夏洛克所允。夏洛克为逞一时之快，即诉请法院，请求安东尼履行割肉一磅之约。
　　法官讯明原委，力劝夏洛克息事宁人未果，即照约判令安东尼应准夏洛克割取胸肉一磅，夏洛克大喜，操刀拟割安东尼胸肉时，法官语之曰：“夏洛克，汝固可依约割取安东尼胸肉一磅，但不得伤其皮肤或使其流一滴血，盖此为契约所无，设因伤其皮肤使之流神圣血液，当予严办，并没收财产，汝其三思之！”夏洛克闻此，脸色骤变，所操利刀停在半空中，迟迟不能下。
　　以今之法律观点言之，违约割肉之约定，本违背公序良俗，应归于无效，固不言而自明。惟在莎翁时代，能不受“恶约亦约”所拘，进而变更其表示行为之意义，使之合理化，则殊难得。虽威尼斯商人系一戏剧，然戏剧不外人生之反映，此剧多少涉及“诡辩”，但瑕不掩瑜，习法者迄今犹津津乐道，良有以也。

================================================
Martin Luther King（有关just laws，unjust laws的论述）：
    The kind of civil disobedience King had in mind was, in fact, quite different from Thoreau’s view of civil disobedience. Thoreau, like most other transcendentalists, was primarily interested in reform of the individual, whereas King was primarily interested in reform of society. As a protest against the Mexican War, Thoreau（Henry David Thoreau） refused to pay taxes, but he did not hope by his action to force a change in national policy. While he encouraged others to adopt similar protests, he did not attempt to mount any mass protest action against unjust laws. In contrast to Thoreau, King began to advocate the use of mass civil disobedience to effect revolutionary changes within the social system.
Ø  In his book Stride Toward Freedom (1958), King himself stated that Thoreau’s essay was his first intellectual contact with the theory of passive resistance to governmental laws that are perceived as morally unjust.
Ø  However, King’s writings suggest that, without realizing it, he was an incipient transcendentalist. Most transcendentalists subscribed to the concept of “higher law” and included civil disobedience to unjust laws as part of their strategy. They often invoked the concept of higher law to justify their opposition to slavery and to advocate disobedience to the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. In his second major book, King’s discussion of   just and unjust laws and the responsibility of the individual is very similar to the transcendentalists’ discussion of higher law. In reference to how one can advocate breaking some laws and obeying others, King notes that there are two types of laws, just and unjust; he describes a just law as a “code that squares with the moral law” and an unjust law as a “code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Thus, King’s opposition to the injustice of legalized segregation in the twentieth century is philosophically akin to the transcendentalists’ opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law in the nineteenth century.

==================================================
恶法亦法还是恶法非法？

恶法亦法”的形式逻辑结构是“坏人也是人”，然而这不过是对论题望文生义的理解,没有多大意义。“恶法亦法”与“恶法非法”之争的真正意义在于：执法者是否应当执行恶法，守法者是否应当遵守恶法？
所谓恶法，指的是邪恶的法律，并非不科学或有毛病的法律。首先应当将恶法之治与人治区分开来。恶法也是国家制定或认可并由国家强制力保证实施的一条、一组、一部法律或整个法律制度。恶法必须表现为国家力求执行的规则，换句话说，恶法也要求在该法域“有法可依，有法必依”。没有表现为规则的政策、指示、命令，或者制定给外国人看而并不打算严格执行的“法律”，例如某些国家反腐败的法律，是不配称为恶法的。其次还必须把恶法与不科学或有毛病的法律区别开来。一个人可能有许多毛病，可能很愚蠢，但并不见得是一个恶人。任何法律都有毛病，要求法律没有毛病无异于放弃法治.。
判断是否恶法的标准是什么？有人提出三个标准：1是否多数人意志的体现，2、是否符合大多数人的利益，3、是否有利于生产力的发展。
我个人的看法，多数人的意志，多数人的利益均不能作为判断是否恶法的标准，否则发生了世界性影响的古罗马法就会被归入恶法之列，因为它显然没有体现妇女、家子和奴隶的意志，也没有保护这些人的平等权益。同时现代社会那些歧视少数民族的法律却可能因为它们反映了多数人的意志和利益而被归入良法之列。是否有利于生产力的发展同样不能作为判断法律良恶的标准，否则希特勒的告密法和斯大林的古拉格群岛压迫法都成了良法，因为希特勒领导德国走出了经济危机，古拉格群岛则把本来是国家财政包袱的监狱变成了生产场所。以时代精神作为判断法律良恶的标准，则可能导致把不科学的法律归入恶法之列，使法律像流行服饰一样朝令夕改。
判断法律的良恶只能有一个标准，这就是当时当地人的一般道德观念。凡当时当地的一般道德观念认为是剥夺个人基本权利或者显失公平的法律，就是恶法。这里所谓一般道德观念是因时因地而不同的，例如奴隶制基础上的罗马法，按照现在的道德观念不管它的立法技术有多么优越，都是恶法。但是在罗马法生效的时间和地域中，却不妨假设它是良法，因为当时当地的大多数妇女、家子和奴隶可能认为他们的无权是理所当然的，并没有显失公平到残暴或令人不能容忍的程度。在目前世界政治、经济和法律一体化已经大势所趋的情况下，一般道德观念的当地性仍应得到承认；其理论根据决不是什么“内政不容干涉”，而是“被统治者的同意”。正是“被统治者的同意”构成了公民守法的道德基础，这种同意可以是直接的、间接的或者默认的。作为评价法律良恶的标准的一般道德观念之所以必须用“当地性”来限定，就是因为只有当地人才是真正的“被统治者”。自然会有人提出，不同阶级、阶层甚至不同职业、性别、年龄的人有不同的道德标准。一般而言这种说法是不错的。但同时同地的人不可能没有一些共同的道德观念，正是这些共同的道德观念，如贼无死罪、欠债要还等，构成了判断法律良恶的标准。
事实上谁也不会主张恶法多多益善、恶法万岁，同时谁也不会主张任何人有根据一己之好恶反抗法律的权利。真正的分歧在于：是用修改法律的立法手段尽快结束恶法的效力；还是用不执行、不遵守的办法直接抗拒恶法。恶法亦法论认为修改法律是唯一可用的手段；而恶法非法论认为立法修改以前也不应执行，不应遵守，一天也不能让恶法生效。前者强调秩序的价值，强调执法、守法习惯的养成；后者强调正义的价值，强调个人的基本权利不可侵犯。我认为，秩序和正义都是人类生存不可缺少的价值，守法执法习惯的养成和个人基本权利的保护都是法治所追求的极端重要的目标，我们不应当在二者中间进行鱼和熊掌的择决，而应当尽量将二者调和起来，恶法亦法与恶法非法之争，与规则治理和自由裁量之争一样，将是法学争鸣中一个永恒的论题。
究竟恶法应不应当执行和遵守？解决这个问题之前有必要先回答另一个问题：个人为什么必须遵守国家的法律？仅仅因为强制吗？一个仅靠强制维持的法律能长命吗？我们有义务遵守黑社会的规矩以防其惩罚吗？我们遵守法律，其实不过是因为我们愿意遵守，至少是愿意忍受。这就是“被统治者的同意”理论。在当代世界，“同意”理论要求法律由民选的立法机关制定并不得与作为人民意志的宪法相冲突，要求赋予个人以互通声息形成多数从而撤销有效法律的权利，这就要求言论自由和结社自由。
对恶法的直接反抗，包括消极地不执行、不遵守恶法，也包括积极地以和平手段（包括游行、罢工、罢市、罢课、绝食等）或革命的手段反抗恶法，对恶法的批评如果不与直接的反抗相结合，实际上意味着对恶法效力的承认。批评的对象不但可以是恶法，也可以是人治、有毛病的法甚至良法。批评是个人（包括执法者）固有的权利，禁止或限制对法律的批评是政治黑暗和整个法律制度邪恶的证据。因为这样做实际上堵塞了以和平手段修改或撤销恶法的可能。
恶法亦法论者如果不是存心为邪恶辩护，就不应该反对对恶法的批评，为了不冒以腐败的执法者的专横代替恶法统治的危险恶法非法论的真正意义在于：它为遭受恶法损害的人尤其是为了不得已反抗恶法而遭受损害的人，在恶法修改或撤销后得到补救提供了一个充分的理由。这种补救包括恢复名誉，但更重要的是金钱赔偿。

来源：法律人之家



借鉴了一下其他小组的资料~~在此感谢一下GoGoGo小组和Kito小组

[ Last edited by Cappuccino☆ on 2005-12-23 at 19:53 ]

Cappuccino☆UID：2155660

牛人的文章:
GoGoGo小组Happy_shirley
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=382521

hunsonUID：2147580

174. "Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."
法律不应该是僵化或固定的，而应该根据不同的环境、时期和地点而足够灵活。
法律的灵活性

立场：
提纲：一，从制定法律的目的来讲，法律应该是固定的：包括法律规范，法律的适用和法律效果的固定；
      二，法律也需要一定的灵活性由於快速发展和高度复杂的社会：时代的发展和地区的差异要求法律是灵活的；
      三，法律的固定与灵活都是相对的概念，关键是达到制定法律的初衷，即维护社会的稳定，保护人民的权利。
稳定和灵活都有利於法律目标的实现，可以互相弥补
[This syllabus talks about the aim of  law should be subscribed to morals,obverse and inverse behavior of law in general considered ,and also pick out behaviors' relative infection,so it's aim, the  social stability  and people's rights.Good syllabus]
What laws should be, stable or flexible? The question is not so simple that we could deliberately know that the former or the later is the answer. [ what is the right reply? maybe better]If laws are defined as the norms which imply the imposition and obedience of obligation, they are relatively stable. If laws are used to maintain the stability of society and the benefits of the people, they are flexible. Therefore it is unsuitable to overemphasize the importance of each side. The final goal of laws calls for a balance between stability and flexibility of laws[themselves]
[ this paragraph points out law's intention,  and answers the goal of law exists in balance]
Keeping fixed or rigid is indispensable for laws during one period of time, which benefits to consolidate the systems of both laws and society. [Topic sentence ]In personal level, laws help people to make prediction of the consequence of their behaviors and figure out the legal obligation and rights exerted upon them by the legal system. In organization level, leaders depend on laws build a well-defined frame to obey by the employees within the groups. To the society, the government uses laws to remain harmony and propensity[prosperity? or just consice words as boom,or thrive ]. Hence, once be legislated, laws must keep stable. The contents of laws should be stable firstly so that the people know what they could do and what could not. Furthermore, it is necessary to keep the laws’ implement fixed such as the subjective and objective of laws. [sorry ,i cound not understand ]The stability of laws’ effect should be encompassed.[you mean "perserved"?] If one person trespass[" i intend to use "overides"] others’ authorities, he must compensate for the damage even is put into the prison according to the criminal laws. [ i intend to wirte like  "he must pay imprisonment for his deed  by law "]Since laws are established in forms of general rules regulating people's actions["behaviours" maybe better], if laws are drawn up today and changed tomorrow, the people will not know how to or what comply with . Living such a society, the people would not be harmony with others and finally impair the stability of society.  
[ above talks out stability, antagonizing or violating  in the term of law would not survive in mordern society,]

Meanwhile, it is necessary for laws to keep moderately flexible due to the rapid and complex developments of our society.[ also topic sentence]
[ laws should  be moderately flexible enough to keep up steps with the rapidity or complexity  of the society]Laws were designed the day before to adjust the people’s behavior of today and tomorrow, therefore they somewhat lag behind of [of ?]times, not to mention the fleeting[good word's choice,simple but meaning] changes of the present society. The criminal of internet, as an example, is the eminence [what is the "eminence" mean?]of recent years. It is impossible to request the laws forebode this kind of things before the internet is invented. [ an example about rising things of  internet before years ]Therefore, the changing times demand emending the original laws or legislating new laws flexibly. Secondly, there are remarkable diversity among the different states such as the economy or politics and culture. Even within one state, the development is unparalleled and there are so many complicated fields. It is unrealistic to enact one law to request all people to comply without considering the circumstances and places. There are local law and national law in China. California, one west state of USA, its law consists of 29 codes, covering various subject areas. The phenomena illustrate that in the international society, the people have noticed that laws should be flexible enough to [suite ]the development of one county or region.
[this topic evolves with the fexibility, indicates that there is no fixed codes could
regulate all cases, fleeting changes of nowaday society should vary under many
considerations,examples for internet and California's local law]
The conception of stability and flexibility are relative for laws. [concise topic sentence is good for all]The stable[stability] does not means conservative and unchangeable but means consistent within one specific time. While the flexibility does not mean laws’ mutation or overturn the original laws but mean update or change gradually. [develope Ts here  by comparison,good sentence]In feudal society of China, when one regime is subverted, the new dynasty will set up its own law system then keep relatively stable for the whole domination. However[sorry ,i can't find out what "howerver" mean], the new system is based on the old one and improves the unreasonable aspects at that time. Actually, the crucial point is whether laws are good to maintain the benefits of the people and the stability of whole society as for the stability or flexibility of laws.

In sum, relative stable and moderately flexible are both conducive to get the goals of laws, and they can ameliorate each other. In one democracy society during peace time, it is better to keep the conformity and harmony of stability and flexibility of laws.

我写得都快掉眼泪了，实在不知道怎么写，超级郁闷！
PS: the structure and composition  is good ,just sharp your words

calsunnyUID：2163431

谢谢hunson 这么细心地帮我修改，就向我的英语老师一样！我得好好改改，有空再帮我看看啊(-------无理要求，因为你得上班)！

calsunnyUID：2163431

材料这么长啊！哪天自己也可以用英文呼呼地写这么多，那真是太好了。记得中学时学鲁迅的文章，老师要求背诵，特难受。就想着哪天自己也写出让人看不懂的文章让鲁迅的孩子背背，到现在也没有成行，不过鲁迅的文章还记得一些，呵呵！哪位有时间能否整理一下将观点提炼出来啊？------------我又提无理要求了！

taotaoQUID：2105710

通篇看下来，按着你的思路写下来大致没有什么问题，因为上面的G友已经详改了，我就没细勾出来了;)，只是拼写错误有点多，可能是打字的时候不小心吧，但平时作文的时候一定要小心，养成习惯！
对这方面的题材，大家可能都抓破头，我也抓得头破血流地想了三点，你看看能成一篇文章不？

观点：部分同意
（一）  一个国家的法律本质不能变，比如捍卫人民的利益，保护国家的利益，国家的性质；
（二）  能更改的是法律的适用范围、条件等外延，因为社会在不断发展变化，比如随着科技发展，犯罪手段在不断高明。
（三）  法律还应不断完善，因为一个民主，平等的社会需要健全的法律体制，而这件事是长久的工作，就像罗马不是一天能建成的。

[ Last edited by taotaoQ on 2005-12-24 at 19:06 ]