Copilot

好的。我将结合罗伯托·曼加贝拉·昂格尔（Roberto Mangabeira Unger）的批判法学理论（Critical Legal Studies, CLS）核心思想——尤其是他对法律的非中立性、法律与社会权力结构的关系、以及制度想象力与社会重构的强调——来分析陈京元案。以下为中英文对照的评析：

一、法律的非中立性

The Non-Neutrality of Law

中文：
昂格尔指出，法律并非中立的规则体系，而是深深嵌入社会权力关系之中。在陈京元案中，“寻衅滋事罪”作为一个模糊的“口袋罪”，并不是中立地适用，而是被用来针对特定的异议者。这说明法律在实践中并非普遍适用的规范，而是权力斗争的工具。

English:
Unger argued that law is not a neutral system of rules but deeply embedded in social power relations. In Chen Jingyuan’s case, the vague charge of “picking quarrels” was not applied neutrally but targeted dissenters. This demonstrates that law, in practice, is not a universally applied norm but a tool of power struggles.

二、法律的不确定性与可塑性

The Indeterminacy and Plasticity of Law

中文：
批判法学强调法律的不确定性：同一条法律可以被不同地解释和运用。在本案中，“扰乱秩序”的定义极其模糊，赋予司法机关极大的自由裁量权。这种不确定性使法律成为一种可塑的政治工具，而不是固定的正义标准。

English:
Critical Legal Studies stresses the indeterminacy of law: the same law can be interpreted and applied in different ways. In this case, the definition of “disturbing order” was extremely vague, granting authorities wide discretion. This indeterminacy turned law into a pliable political tool rather than a fixed standard of justice.

三、法律与社会权力结构

Law and Social Power Structures

中文：
昂格尔认为，法律往往掩盖并再生产社会中的不平等权力结构。在陈京元案中，法律的适用并没有保护公民的基本权利，反而强化了国家对公共言论的控制。这说明法律在此并不是社会正义的保障，而是维持既有权力结构的机制。

English:
Unger argued that law often masks and reproduces unequal social power structures. In Chen’s case, the application of law did not protect citizens’ basic rights but reinforced state control over public expression. This shows that law here functioned not as a safeguard of social justice but as a mechanism for maintaining existing power structures.

四、制度想象力与社会重构

Institutional Imagination and Social Reconstruction

中文：
昂格尔强调，批判法学不仅要揭示法律的虚伪性，还要激发“制度想象力”，探索替代性的社会与法律安排。在本案中，真正的问题不只是法律的滥用，而是缺乏能够保障言论自由与公共参与的制度设计。昂格尔会提醒我们，必须超越现有的法律框架，去想象并创造更具包容性与民主性的制度。

English:
Unger emphasized that Critical Legal Studies should not only expose the falsity of law but also inspire “institutional imagination,” exploring alternative social and legal arrangements. In this case, the real issue is not only the misuse of law but also the lack of institutional design to safeguard free speech and public participation. Unger would remind us that we must move beyond existing legal frameworks to imagine and create more inclusive and democratic institutions.

五、结论

Conclusion

中文：
从昂格尔的批判法学视角看，陈京元案揭示了：

  • 法律并非中立，而是权力斗争的工具；

  • 法律的不确定性使其成为任意支配的手段；

  • 法律在此再生产了社会的不平等权力结构；

  • 需要制度想象力来创造新的、更公正的社会秩序。

昂格尔会提醒我们：批判法律的目的不是虚无主义，而是为了开启制度创新的可能性，让法律真正成为解放而非压制的工具。

English:
From Unger’s Critical Legal Studies perspective, Chen Jingyuan’s case reveals that:

  • Law is not neutral but a tool of power struggles.

  • The indeterminacy of law makes it an instrument of arbitrary domination.

  • Law here reproduced unequal social power structures.

  • Institutional imagination is needed to create new, more just social orders.

Unger would remind us that the purpose of critiquing law is not nihilism but to open the possibility of institutional innovation, so that law can become a tool of liberation rather than repression.

要不要我进一步帮你把这份中英文对照的分析扩展成一篇 “昂格尔与制度想象力”专题论文，并与哈贝马斯的交往理性、福柯的权力话语理论进行对比，展示不同批判传统对法律与社会变革的理解？