来源：天驰君泰法律评论
发布日期：2026年05月19日
《美国法通识：十大核心法律课程》
作者 刘芳
出版社 清华大学出版社
出版时间 2026.4
ISBN 9787302710400
编辑推荐
- 美国密歇根州最高法院前任首席大法官史蒂芬·马克曼撰写了推荐序言
- 系统梳理和总结了美国法学院和美国律师职业考试涵盖的十大核心法律课程的内容与知识点
- 实务操作为出发点，结合大量案例讲解，理论与实践相结合
内容简介
本书以清晰、生动的方式，系统地为中文读者全面呈现美国法律的核心内容与思维逻辑。紧扣美国法学院教学体系与律师执业资格考试的真实框架，精选十大核心法律领域，系统梳理主要制度理论与关键知识要点。同时，通过经典判例解析与大量贴近实务的真实场景，将抽象的法律规则转化为可理解、可记忆的法律故事，引导读者在案例分析与规则适用中把握美国法律的运行逻辑。全书实现理论与案例的有机融合，语言通俗而不失严谨，既适合初学者系统入门，也具备长期查阅与进阶参考价值，并同步提升英文法律表达与实务沟通能力，尤为适合法学院学生、比较法研究者、美国律师资格考试备考者及从事涉外法律业务的实务人士阅读。
作者简介
刘芳
中国和美国纽约州、加利福尼亚州、密歇根州及华盛顿特区注册律师，长期从事中美两国公司法、跨境投融资并购、私募股权投资、知识产权以及涉外商事诉讼和仲裁法律事务。
1999年本科毕业于北京大学法律系，2009年至2014年就读于美国西密歇根大学库利法学院和美国加州大学伯克利法学院，获得法学硕士（LL.M.）和法学博士（J.D.magna cum laude）学位，并跟随美国密歇根州最高法院大法官史蒂芬•马克曼（Stephen Markman）和密歇根州第17巡回法院经济庭知名法官克里斯多夫•耶茨（Christopher Yates）实习。合著出版《商业知识产权战略》；翻译出版《商业秘密：网络时代的信息资产管理》；在知产林教育平台和点睛网律师培训平台录制并发行美国法课程系列。
史蒂芬大法官
推荐序
美国大法官推荐中国读者读《美国法通识》
本文系美国密歇根州最高法院前任首席大法官史蒂芬·马克曼为《美国法通识—— 十大核心法律课程》撰写的序言。史蒂芬·马克曼大法官在美国密歇根州最高法院任职长达21年，并曾担任首席大法官。在此之前，他在密歇根州担任了4年首席联邦检察官，在美国参议院司法委员会及其宪法小组委员会担任顾问7年，在美国司法部工作4年，担任法律政策助理检察长，负责为美国总统选拔联邦法官的遴选程序。此外，马克曼大法官还教授美国宪法课程近30年。（Justice Stephen Markman served for 21 years as a Justice and for a period as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan; prior to that, he served for four years as the Michigan’s ‘United States Attorney’ or chief federal prosecutor; for seven years as Counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Subcommittee on the Constitution; and for four years as Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he headed the federal judicial selection process for an American President. He has also taught American constitutional law for nearly thirty years.）
译文
与刘芳第一次见面时，我正在美国密歇根州最高法院任职。密歇根州是美国一个规模较大且工业化程度较高的州。刘芳毕业于北京大学法学院，当时正攻读美国最大法学院之一的法学学位。我记得她在多门课程中获得了最高分，正在打破学校的历史纪录，这对一位非英语母语的学生而言是非凡的成就。不久之后，她又在美国最负盛名的法学院之一获得了高等法律学位。相比之下，我甚至连她新书的中文标题都读不出来，更别提理解其中的内容了。幸运的是，借助某种先进的人工智能，这本书被翻译成了英文，使我得以阅读，尽管这项人工智能的翻译在中文和英文上似乎还略显生涩。
在我看来，是什么让刘芳在申请密歇根州最高法院实习时脱颖而出？也许是她在充满挑战的环境中取得的卓越学术成就令我深感钦佩；也许是我对这样一位成绩斐然的学生如何在法庭工作中展现才华充满好奇；又或许只是她的个人魅力和自信光芒难以忽视。显然，她并未意识到，对于一名年轻的法律学生而言，司法面试是一项多么严肃且充满压力的考验。无论原因如何，刘芳最终获得了这份实习机会，使她得以深入了解美国司法体系的复杂性和日常运作。随着时间的推移，我欣慰地看到，刘芳在法院实习中获得的实践经验不仅使她受益良多，也惠及了她的读者。
在诠释美国法律体系的核心价值观时，人们往往可以找到多种解读方式。作为一名美国法学家，我深信这一体系的价值，并坚信我们所推崇的“法治”理念推动了美国的成长与繁荣，激发了社会创新，保障了公民的自由权利。这些价值观在本书中可见一斑。
在梳理这些核心价值观时，我将重点阐述一些对非美国法律从业者尤为重要的基本准则，希望这些原则能获得他们的认同。在此过程中，我并非意图将这些准则与中国或其他法律体系进行对比，因为我并未专门学习过其他法律体系。尽管如此，我仍记得曾在几次交流中与刘芳探讨过中国法律在实践中的具体问题。回想起来，我本该怀着更强烈的求知欲深入探讨这些话题，但密歇根州最高法院堆积如山的上诉案件使我不得不将时间和精力集中在美国及密歇根州法律的解释上，这已经是一份全职的投入。
美国法律体系以一部全国性的宪法为基础。该宪法不仅界定了政府的权力及其边界，还确立了235年前以宪法之名制定并记录的公民个人权利。
美国法律体系基于联邦制原则，将政府权力在联邦政府（位于华盛顿特区）与50个州政府（包括密歇根州在内）之间进行分配。因此，美国由51个相对独立的法律体系组成。这一结构旨在分散权力，从而限制政府权力的行使。
美国法律体系还基于将政府权力分配至立法、行政和司法三个部门的原则。每个部门拥有特定的宪法权力，同时被禁止行使其他部门的权力，并被赋予对其他两个部门进行“制衡”的职能。这种“分权”体系旨在分散并限制政府权力的行使，并在美国的51个独立法律体系中得到了类似的体现。
美国法律体系以“法治”为基础，特别强调平等的“法治”原则。理想状态下，所有人都应享有平等的权利，并在法律面前承担同等的责任。
美国法律体系还建立在一个司法系统之上，法官有责任合理且忠实地解释法律和宪法，并公正地审判被指控违反法律的个人。
大多数人，甚至许多美国人可能都没有意识到，美国约95%的法律争议实际上是在五十个州各自独立的法律体系内得到解决的。每个州依据自身的法律、宪法、法规和程序，以及独特的法院和法官体系来处理案件。然而，值得注意的是，许多至关重要且影响深远的案件是在联邦法律体系框架下审理的，其中，美国最高法院作为宪法的最终解释者，扮演着举足轻重的角色。此外，涉及国际因素的案件，例如与中国或其他国家的个人或企业相关的法律纠纷，通常会产生更广泛的跨州乃至跨国影响，因此更有可能落入联邦法律体系的司法管辖范围。当然，这只是一个普遍现象，而非一成不变的原则。
尽管如此，我个人认为，对于年轻的法律从业者或法学院学生来说，没有比在美国50个州之一的最高法院实习更充实、更全面的体验了。这些法院处理的案件种类繁多、覆盖广泛。在我担任密歇根州最高法院法官的21年间（由于州法律的年龄限制，我于三年前卸任），我们法院通常每月需审理250至300起上诉案件。这些案件来自密歇根州的初审法院、商事法院和上诉法院，几乎涵盖了所有类型的法律纠纷。
民事案件涉及各种可能出现的“案件和争议”，包括个人、公司、邻里、政府、制造商、产权所有人、保险公司、大大小小的企业、雇主与雇员、医生与患者、公共机构与公民，以及纳税人和税务征收人员之间的纠纷等。
刑事案件涵盖各种可能的犯罪类型，并涉及相关的审判程序、陪审团选拔、证据规则、量刑指南与惩罚措施，以及对犯罪受害者的赔偿等问题。
宪法案件解释国家和州宪法条款的含义；
条例的含义；
家事案件涉及结婚、离婚、收养、子女抚养以及遗嘱和遗产等问题。
普通法案件依循美国数十年乃至数世纪以来发展出的司法判例，确立了美国人在合同、财产和侵权关系领域的惯例和传统。任何在州法院（或联邦法院）中拥有丰富经验的法律从业者，都必须精通普通法及其历史与发展过程，并理解司法机关在识别和制定普通法中所扮演的独特角色。
回顾刘芳十年前撰写的几份备忘录，不难看出她的实习经历在案件类型上具有典型性。我记得有因公共汽车为了避免与汽车相撞而导致的自行车事故而引发的责任纠纷；关于刑事性侵犯案件中被告认罪自愿性的问题；约定排除司法上诉的仲裁协议有效性的问题；关于房主是否履行了保持其财产不对他人构成风险之义务的争议；保险公司对由于供应商疏忽而导致的公司意外业务损失的赔偿义务的范围问题；关于法律和医疗过失索赔的争议；关于一艘大型船只的税务争议（密歇根是唯一一个被五大湖环绕的州）；以及关于刑事被告人是否适当享有与证人对峙的宪法权利的争议问题。这些案例只是其中的一部分，但充分展示了刘芳在实习期间接触到法律问题的广泛性和多样性。
在这些案件以及其他许多案件中，刘芳所撰写的备忘录——这些是我所剩下可供回顾的材料——展现了她对法律和宪法的深刻理解，以及对我们各自在推动结果公正方面所承担的专业职责的敏锐洞察。尤其值得一提的是，她认识到我们在审判中适用的必须是法律本身，而非她或我的个人主观态度。她深知，解释相关法律条文时必须合理地遵循立法者的初衷和目的。同时她明白，她需要全面而客观地向我概述争议各方的主张。此外，她还意识到，在她总结了所有相关观点、证据和判例之后，还必须准备具有说服力的阐述，向我说明如何在本案中最佳地实现“法律下的正义”，并且准备好回应我的疑问和反驳意见。
刘芳不仅是我最优秀、最出色的法律实习生之一，还与我、我的四位常驻法律助理，以及另外六个司法办公室的法律助理和实习生紧密合作。所有人都和我一样，对她充满钦佩与敬重。无论是在美国还是在她的祖国中国，我都为她在法律领域取得的成就感到骄傲，这些成就最终凝聚在了这本书中。在书中，刘芳对美国法律体系进行了智慧、理性且权威的概述。对于不熟悉美国法律和司法体系的中国法律从业者，这本书将为他们指引正确的方向；而中国的法律学生也能从这本清晰的单卷本参考书中获益良多。尽管如此综合的书籍难以涵盖美国51个司法体系的所有法律，刘芳成功地总结并突出展示了这些法律体系的共性。如果让我对本书后续版本提出一些优化建议，我希望能够增加对美国各州宪法的关注。目前，各州宪法正引发广泛的学术讨论，旨在振兴司法联邦主义并重新调整州宪法与联邦宪法权力的平衡。
最后，我不得不提的是，如果至今还没有一本类似于刘芳所著的、面向美国从业者和学生的介绍中国法律体系的著作，那么这样的作品早就应该问世。或许，刘芳会再次肩负起这一重要使命，为我们带来这样一部作品。
原文
When I first met Fang Liu, I was serving on the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, one of the larger and more heavily industrialized states of the American union. Fang at the time was a graduate of the Peking University Law School and then attending what was one of the largest law schools in the United States in pursuit of an American law degree. It is my recollection that Fang was well underway toward winning a school-record number of "prizes" (for having achieved the highest grade in a course), a remarkable achievement for a student for whom English was at best her second language. Soon after her graduation, Fang proceeded to earn an advanced law degree from one of the most highly-regarded law schools in the United States. By contrast, I am unable even to pronounce the Chinese title of Fang’s new book, much less to comprehend its words, sentences, and paragraphs-- but for the good fortune of having had it translated into English through some magical process of ‘artificial intelligence’ that seems fully conversant with neither the English nor the Chinese language.
What did I find most appealing regarding Fang’s application for an externship position in my judicial office? Perhaps, it was because I admired her academic record achieved under hugely challenging circumstances; perhaps, it was because I was curious to see how a student with such a record might be able to contribute to the work of the Court and take the fullest advantage of this opportunity; or perhaps, because it was simply difficult not to be impressed by her personal ebullience and exhilaration of spirit, failing apparently to recognize just how sobering and traumatic the judicial interview process was supposed to be for a young law student. In any case, Fang was hired to assist with the Court’s work, to be immersed in the intricacies and day-to-day operations of the American judicial process. I am content with the passage of time in concluding that the practical education she received at the Court has served both Fang and her reading audience well.
There are many ways by which to define the broadest values of the American legal system. It will come as little surprise as an American jurist that I think highly of this system and believe that our ‘rule of law’ has contributed enormously to the growth, the prosperity, the innovativeness and the freedoms of the American nation. These values are each, more or less, on display in the present book.
In summarizing these values, I would emphasize the following overarching principles that must each be recognized by the foreign practitioner. In so doing, I do not purport to compare or to contrast these principles with those of the Chinese or any other legal system because I do not purport to be a student of these other legal systems, although I do recall on several occasions engaging Fang on specific aspects of the Chinese practice of law. I wish I had inquired more often out of sheer curiosity, but it was full-time work giving reasonable meaning to the law of the United States and Michigan amidst the steady and heavy flow of appeals coming before the Michigan Supreme Court.
(1) The American legal system is predicated upon a national constitution that defines the authority, and the limits upon that authority, of government, and thus serves also to define the individual rights of the people in whose name that constitution was written and ratified 235 years ago.
(2) The American legal system is predicated upon a ‘federalist’ system in which governmental authority is apportioned between the national government (in Washington DC) and the fifty state governments of the Union (including that of Michigan). Thus, there are 51 separate legal systems that form the American nation, a structure designed to disperse and thus to limit the exercise of governmental power.
(3) The American legal system is also predicated upon governmental authority apportioned among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each branch possesses certain specified constitutional powers, is denied other powers, and is authorized to exercise certain ‘checks and balances’ against abuses of power by the other two branches. This system of ‘separated powers’ is also designed to disperse and thus to limit the exercise of governmental power and is reflected similarly within each of our 51 legal systems.
(4) The American legal system is predicated upon the ‘rule of law,’ in particular the equal ‘rule of law,’ in which, ideally, all persons enjoy equal rights and are subject to equal responsibilities under the law.
(5) And the American legal system is predicated upon a judicial system in which judges carry out the obligation of reasonably and faithfully giving meaning to the law and constitution and fairly judging the conduct of those who are accused of acting in their breach.
It is not commonly recognized, even by many Americans themselves, that approximately 95% of all legal disputes in the United States are resolved within the fifty state legal systems, each with their own laws, constitutions, rules and procedures, and system of courts and judges. However, many of our most important and far-reaching disputes are addressed within the federal legal system, especially by the United States Supreme Court which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the national Constitution. Furthermore, it should be understood that disputes involving individuals and businesses of other nations, such as China, will tend to have a broader interstate and international impact and thus be more likely to implicate the jurisdiction of the federal legal system. But that is only a general proposition rather than an inflexible rule.
Still, in my own judgment, there is no more satisfying and better-rounded externship experience for a young lawyer or law student than that undertaken within the fifty state supreme courts of America, with their breadth and variety of cases. During my 21 years on the Michigan Supreme Court (ending three years ago on account of age limitations that I will not mention imposed by our state constitution), my Court often considered as many as 250-300 appeals each month brought from the decisions of state trial courts, business courts, and intermediate appellate courts. These appeals typically implicated the fullest range of litigation:
(a) civil cases, involving every conceivable type of ‘case and controversy’ arising between individuals, corporations, neighbors, governments, manufacturers, property owners, insurors, small and large businesses, employers and employees, doctors and patients, public agencies and citizens, taxpayers and tax collectors, etc.
(b) criminal cases, involving every conceivable type of criminal offense, including adjacent issues of trial procedures, jury selection, rules of evidence, sentencing guidelines and punishments, and the restitution of victims of crime;
(c) constitutional cases, assessing the meaning of provisions of both the national and the state constitutions;
(d) statutory and administrative cases, resolving the meaning of laws, rules, and regulations enacted by federal, state, and local legislatures and administrative authorities;
(e) domestic cases, involving issues of marriage, divorce, adoption, child support, and wills and estates; and
(f) common law cases, drawing upon judicial precedents that have developed in America over decades and centuries, identifying the customary practices and traditions of the American people in the realm of contract, property, and tort relationships. It is necessary that any accomplished legal practitioner in state court (and often in federal court as well) be well-versed in the common law, its history and development, and the distinctive role played by the judiciary in its identification and formulation.
Reviewing several of Fang’s written memorandums of a decade ago, it is clear that her externship experience was a typical one in its range of cases. I am reminded of a liability dispute arising from a bicycle accident caused by a public bus seeking to avoid a collision with an automobile; an issue of the voluntariness of a guilty plea in a criminal sexual conduct case; the validity of an arbitration agreement precluding access to a judicial appeal; a question of a homeowner’s compliance with his obligation to maintain his property free of hazards posing risks to others; the extent of an insuror’s obligations to reimburse a corporation suffering unexpected business harms from the negligence of a supplier; the merits of legal and medical malpractice claims; a tax controversy surrounding a large marine vessel (Michigan is the only state surrounded by each of five Great Lakes); and a dispute surrounding whether the constitutional right of confrontation with a witness have properly been afforded a criminal defendant. To name only a few cases at random.
In each of these cases and in many others, Fang’s written memorandums— all that I have left to review— reflect sophisticated understandings of the law and constitution and a nuanced appreciation of both her, and my, professional obligations in furthering a just outcome. In particular, Fang recognizes that it is the law that must be applied, not her, or my, personal attitude. She is cognizant that relevant provisions of the law must reasonably be understood in accordance with the intentions and purposes of their framers; and she understands that she must present me with a thorough and fair-minded summation of what has been asserted by all sides in a dispute. And she appreciates as well that, after she has summoned and presented all of the relevant arguments, evidence, and precedents, she must then be prepared to explain persuasively how ‘justice under law’ can best be obtained in the case and equally prepared to address my concerns and contrary arguments.
Fang Liu was one of my finest and most accomplished legal externs and worked closely with myself, my four permanent law clerks, and the law clerks and legal externs of six other judicial offices, all of whom shared my admiration and regard. I have since been made proud of her accomplishments in the law, both in the United States and back home in China, culminating in the present book. Here, Fang has offered an intelligent and reasoned and authoritative overview of the American legal system. The Chinese legal practitioner, otherwise unfamiliar with the American legal and judicial systems, will be pointed in the right direction in gaining his or her bearings and the Chinese law student will gain much in having access to a clear single-volume reference. Although it is impossible in such a work to summarize the law of fifty-one separate jurisdictions, Fang undertakes an impressive effort to emphasize what is possessed in common by these distinctive systems of law. If there is any matter to be given greater attention in a later edition, I hope it will be a greater focus upon America’s state constitutions, which at the present are the subject of considerable intellectual ferment in an effort to revitalize judicial federalism and recalibrate the balance of state and federal constitutional authority.
I must finally conclude by observing that, if there is not yet a comparable work to Fang’s on the Chinese legal system intended to be accessible for the American practitioner and student, it is overdue and Fang may again be called upon to carry out such a task.
作者和史蒂芬的合影
目录
第一章 合同法
背景介绍
一、合同法概述
二、要约与承诺（Offer & Acceptance）
三、合同对价（Consideration）
四、合同成立的抗辩因素（Defenses to Formation）
五、违约救济（Remedies）
第二章 侵权法
背景介绍
一、故意侵权（Intentional Torts）
二、过失侵权（Negligence）
三、严格责任（Strict Liability）
四、其他常见侵权责任
第三章 宪法
背景介绍
一、联邦政府的权力（Powers of the Federal Government）
二、联邦体系（The Federal System）
三、个人权利（Individual Rights）
第四章 刑法
背景介绍
一、刑法的基本原则（General Principles）
二、刑法中的主要犯罪类型（Major Crimes）
三、不完全犯罪（Inchoate Crimes）
四、抗辩理由（Defenses）
第五章 刑事诉讼法
背景介绍
一、美国联邦刑事诉讼审前程序、审理程序和审后程序
二、基于宪法第四修正案确立的刑事诉讼制度
三、基于宪法第五修正案确立的刑事诉讼制度
四、基于宪法第六修正案确立的刑事诉讼制度
第六章 民事诉讼法
背景介绍
一、美国联邦法院的管辖权
二、美国联邦民事诉讼的几个主要阶段
三、合并审理（Joinder）
第七章 证据法
背景介绍
一、证据法的基本原则（General Principles of Evidence）
二、品格证据（Character Evidence）
三、传闻（Hearsay）证据
四、基于特权和公共政策的证据排除（Privileges and Policy Exclusion）
第八章 企业组织法
背景介绍
一、代理制度（Agency）
二、个人独资企业法和合伙企业法
三、公司法
第九章 不动产法
背景介绍
一、不动产所有权（wnership）
二、不动产交易（The Land Transaction）
三、产权登记（Recordation）
四、不动产所有权人与承租人的关系（Landlord & Tenant）
五、关于不动产权属的争议（Disputes on Ownership in Land）
第十章 婚姻家庭、遗嘱与信托法
一、婚姻家庭法（Family Law）
二、遗嘱与无遗嘱继承（Wills & Intestacy）
三、信托（Trust）
文章来源：法学学术前沿
全国办公室： 北京、上海、广州、深圳、天津、长春、南京、郑州、成都、福州、武汉、珠海、苏州、合肥、杭州、太原、重庆、宁波、海口、昆明、银川、济南、沈阳、无锡、南昌、呼和浩特、西安、泉州、青岛、三亚、温州、长沙、贵阳、洛阳、乌鲁木齐、扬州、喀什、惠州
国际办公室： 吉隆坡、雅加达、布拉格