Cohabitants, Property and the Law: A Study of Injustice

With cohabitation outside marriage becoming increasingly common, the law's response to the problems that arise on separation has become a key issue for public and family policy. This article draws upon the findings of a qualitative empirical study of how property disputes are handled when cohabitants separate. It argues that the unfairness of the current law is best understood as stemming from a failure to recognise the situation that arises as one of unjust enrichment. It shows that the complexity and unpredictability of the law make it difficult to bargain effectively in the shadow of the law. It suggests that the need for reform goes beyond the introduction of a discretionary regime, such as that proposed by the Law Commission, to reform of conveyancing and property law and practice to facilitate initial, as well as post-separation private ordering.     

Free Movement of Goods and Property Law

Although usually considered a national competence, there is an effect of internal market law on property law. When a property right is validly created in one Member State and the object on which it rests is moved to another Member State, an internal market dimension arises. Such has been the case in the ECJ's Krantz decision 25 years ago, dealing with the question on whether the rules allowing a seizure of goods owned by someone else in another Member State and leading to a potential loss of right is in conformity with EU law. More than 25 years have passed and our thinking about the internal market as well as the free movement case‐law has changed significantly. A re‐examination of this decision leads to a different conclusion: the refusal to recognise property rights validly created in another Member State violates the free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU.     

知识产权法的制度创新本质与知识创新目标

创新是知识产权法的历史过程与时代使命。知识产权法的创新意义,表现在其本身的制度创新与所追求的知识创新两个方面。知识产权法产生、变革和发展的历史,即为科技、文化创新与法律制度创新相互作用、相互促进的历史。理想的知识产权制度应是持续激励创新的制度,也是自身不断创新的制度。现代知识产权法存在可能发生的"制度风险",影响或制约着创新发展目标的实现。国家与社会事务的管理者具有"政治企业家"的角色担当,作为创新制度的最大供给者,应在知识产权法的主体意识层面、制度设计层面以及社会运行层面作出理性反思和积极应对。     

论行政决策法治化与服务型政府建设的耦合

行政决策法治化是现代政府建设的重要内容。行政决策法治化的根本动力和价值追求是公众权利的实现与保障。行政决策法治化通过行政决策科学化和民主化与服务型政府建设在公众权利的实现与保障上达到耦合,耦合的基本要求是公众参与制度化、利益团体多元化、信息公开规范化、监督形式多样化及责任追究明确化。     

我国不动产物权登记制度的反思与构建

我国现行的不动产登记制度,存在着没有统一的不动产登记立法、没有统一的不动产登记机关、权属证书不统一、登记种类不健全、登记法律效力不明确等问题;在不动产登记制度完善时,应建立不动产物权登记的统一规则、制定统一的不动产登记法,建立统一的不动产登记机关,采纳登记要件主义的立法模式,确立登记的公信力,建立登记机关的赔偿责任制度。     

Constitutional law

Recent decisions of New Zealand courts illustrate that domestic proceedings may not be effective to recognise indigenous property rights, nor to address grievances that stem from breaches of customary indigenous rights. One possibility for Māori to have their rights enforced is to consider using international law. Gains have been made in international law with regard to indigenous rights; one noteworthy decision is Mayagna (sumo) Awas-Tingni Community v The Republic of Nicaragua. In this case, a universal and generic property right was extended consistently with emerging indigenous rights to include an indigenous right to customary land tenure. This paper considers whether the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can carry a property right for indigenous peoples in New Zealand.     

The transfer of property rights by theft: an economic analysis

This article studies the voluntary transfer of property that had been stolen—a topic almost unexplored in the law and economics literature. The question is whether a buyer of a stolen good should obtain title to the good if he/she has purchased it in good faith. As described in the article different jurisdictions treat this issue differently. The traditional theory suggests that there is a trade-off between the costs of protecting the good and the costs of verifying the ownership. However, as shown, the rule of law concerning this issue significantly affects parties’ incentives. Specifically, it is shown that a rule of law where good faith is irrelevant in determining the issue of property rights Pareto dominates a rule where good faith may protect an innocent buyer. Thus, an owner of an asset will spend more resources on protecting his property and potential buyers will incur higher costs in order to verify the ownership when good faith is decisive for the transfer of property rights.     

On Necessity as a Defence to Crime: Possibilities, Problems and the Limits of Justification and Excuse

The article reviews recent developments in England in the law of necessity as a defence to crime and calls for its further extension. It argues that the defence of necessity presents the criminal law with difficult questions of competing values and the ordering of harms. English law has taken a nuanced position on the respective roles of the courts and the legislature in the ordering of harms, although the development of the law has been pragmatic rather than coherently theorised. The law has granted necessity some scope as an exculpatory principle in the law of general defences, but it has also respected the primacy of the legislature as the legitimate arbiter of many of the competitions of value that necessity throws up. The recognition of necessity has not been in the form of a single unified defence of that name. Rather it has taken the form of a number of defences, based on a principle of necessity, but with different nomenclature and different rationales. This approach to necessity is defended as right in terms of principle and policy. Any further development of necessity as a general defence should be restricted to two contexts, namely those of emergencies, and of conflicts of duty, where a danger of death or serious injury is present.

The defence of therapeutic privilege in Australia

Therapeutic privilege is a defence that excuses a medical practitioner or other health professional from complying with the requirements of full disclosure to a patient in circumstances where it is reasonably considered that such disclosure would be harmful to that patient's health or welfare. Although the concept originated in the United States, the defence has been applied in Australia, and was specifically endorsed as part of Australian law by the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. However, there has been negligible application of the defence since that endorsement. This article examines the doctrine of therapeutic privilege in the present Australian medico-legal environment. After an examination of the concept and its three constituetent elements, the article canvasses the limited instances of judicial approval of the defence prior to Rogers v Whitaker. The author then analyses, by reference to reported and unreported case law, why the defence has been so narrowly interpreted since, such that it has come to occupy an almost untenable position in Australia's medical jurisprudence.     

Ex Turpi Causa: Reformation not Revolution

Seldom has an area of law been so afflicted with uncertainties and contradictions as the illegality defence and rarely have judicial opinions been so sharply divided as in the Supreme Court decision in Patel v Mirza where nine Justices examined the issue of the correct approach to the illegality defence. Six of them endorsed the ‘range of factors’ approach, whereas three condemned it. This paper defends the majority's approach against the minority's criticisms but argues that refinements should be made to it in order to address the uncertainty that may arise from its application.     

民法典创制中的中国民法学

民法典创制是新中国几代民法学人的梦想,而2007年的《物权法》颁行使我们距离这一梦想更近一步。《物权法》颁行以后,立法机关又将工作重点转向侵权法立法。所以,本年度学者主要围绕物权法和侵权法进行研究。总体而言,该年度的民法学研究非常繁荣,也体现了民法典创制时期民法学研究的一般特点。虽然民法典创制依然任重道远,但我们应当迎接民法解释论的新时代。     

制度构建视野下的虚拟财产

代码能够在一定程度上保护虚拟财产,但虚拟财产更需要法律的保护。我们要综合运用虚拟性、排他性、永久性与交易性等来研判虚拟财产。最终用户许可协议中关于财产归属的约定是无效的,虚拟财产应该属于用户而非运营商。通过扩大解释或修正现有法律是调整虚拟财产的理想之选。虚拟财产具有多样性,其法律制度的构建要以物权法为核心;同时,知识产权法、侵权责任法等相关法律也要做相应修正以满足调整虚拟财产的需求。     

家产制与中国家庭法律的社会适应——一种“实践的法律社会学”分析

家产制作为一种习惯法,与中国的家庭法律及其社会适应性存在着密切关联。对家产制和家庭法律的研究应该采取"实践的法律社会学"态度,通过经验研究来充分展示转型社会对家庭本身的内在需求,从而在法律制度上对这种社会需求给于正确的回应。考察分家模式的历史变迁,可以发现家产制是处理中国家庭财产分配的根本制度选择。在产权结构上,家产制具有客体上的公有性、主体上的多元性以及主体作用于客体的身份性等三大特征,从而区别于西方所有权制度。这种特殊的家产制度是中国转型社会的内在需求,因为中国农村的城市化是一个长期的过程,而在这个过程中家产制有利于维护家庭的稳定从而有助于城市化的顺利进行;另外一方面,家产制有利于补充国家养老能力的不足从而确保城市家庭的稳定和再生产,提升国家的整体竞争力。然而家庭法律却日益朝着"去家产制"和"私权化"的方向发展,从而丧失社会适应性,不利于家庭和社会的稳定。因此,中国的家庭立法应该回归新的家产制,并以其为中心确立起"发展型家庭法律"体系。     

物业管理合同履行中不当抗辩行为的限制

在物业管理纠纷发生时，物业管理企业经常以停水断电或拒绝提供其他涉及业主重大利益的物业服务威胁业主，业主也动辄以拒绝缴纳或长期拖欠物业费对抗物业管理企业，这些行为违背诚实信用原则、损害社区公共利益，属于滥用抗辩权的不当抗辩行为。应当从立法和司法角度对这些不当抗辩行为进行限制，在我国现有立法没有相应规定的情况下，法院应援用诚实信用、公共利益和禁止权利滥用原则在司法审判实践中对不当抗辩行为进行限制。在限制不当抗辩行为时，应当允许当事人对无损他人利益的抗辩方式进行约定，也不能否定当事人行使正当的履行抗辩权。     

论刑法介入财产权保护时的考量要点

在财产权保护中,动用刑法需要以存在实质上的财产损害为前提,其中的侵害对象需要具有经济价值(也包括主观上的情感价值);而不管是诈骗罪还是盗窃罪,在有无财产损害问题上都要采取整体财产说来判断。单纯为了维持财产秩序不足以动用刑法。而刑法介入财产权的保护与否也无需完全依赖于民法的判断,因为民法和刑法的评价存在不同。同时,平等保护原则对于财产权的刑法保护具有重要的指引作用。刑法介入财产权的保护既要慎重又要积极,不能借口刑法的最后手段性和补充性而矮化刑法在财产权保护中的定位和功能。     

Intoxication as a defence to murder in Seychelles

In Seychelles, the mens rea of murder can be established, as an alternative to an intention to cause death or grievous harm, on the basis of the defendant’s ‘knowledge’ that the act or omission causing death will probably cause death or grievous harm. However, a defendant is only allowed to plead intoxication as a defence where it had become impossible for him to form the necessary ‘intention’ due to intoxication. This article highlights the difficulties in the application of the defence of intoxication to cases where the mens rea for murder is based purely on a defendant’s ‘knowledge’. In analysing the defence of intoxication in Seychelles in cases of murder, the article examines the position under English and Australian law.     

国际反恐与先发制人军事行动

先发制人军事行动原則上应被禁止。但在极端情况下采取预先性自卫,已在国际上得到越来越多的响应,其可能的法律依据是联合国会员国或联合国机构对联合国宪章的解释实践。预防性军事行动由于明显缺乏国际法律依据,且这种对自卫权的扩大解释没有被国际社会绝大多数成员所接受,故仍应予以严禁。求助于联合国安理会应对国际恐怖威胁仍是一种最为可取的做法,为此各会员国有必要在武力使用的具体标准和程序问题上尽可能达成共识。     

强化对私有财产的刑事法律保护

运用法律手段保护私有财产是我国目前立法的重要任务之一。刑法作为国家法律体系中的重要部门法,在法律体系中起着保障法作用。对私有财产的保护是刑法中的重要内容,应当提高对私有财产保护的法律地位、扩大保护范围、提高法定刑,以实现保护公共财产与保护私有财产的平等。     

The legal status of the fetus: an international review

The article examines the way that courts and legislatures in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and Australia have answered questions regarding the legal status of a fetus. These questions have arisen in a variety of legal situations: the article deals with succession, criminal, child protection and negligence law. The conclusion offered is that a fetus has a value and an existence that the law should recognise. This does not mean, however, that in all circumstances the law should protect the interests of the fetus. Law-makers will respond differently to claims made on behalf of a fetus, depending on the context. The fetus does not have a uniform value or character in the eyes of the law. The law makes choices as to the situations in which it will take account of actual or threatened antenatal harm.     

The Commons as a Legal Concept

Scientific debates about the political, economic and even legal aspects of commons have circulated wherever commons are perceived to pose a challenge to the increasing commodification of people’s lives. Indeed, a wide range of commons has emerged worldwide. Emerging commons pose a challenge to the law which is now requested to provide legal tools to resist the dispossession of the common wealth. Nevertheless, commons do not embody a reality which is external or unfamiliar to the law. This paper is an attempt to reframe the commons as a legal concept. In this article I argue that commons are not just a marginal element of contemporary legal systems. Rather, they embody the premises for important transformative practices and discourses and represent a subversive site in the legal order. I maintain, first, that the law of the commons is consistent with the law in force and the current legal regimes of private property and, second, that the current stage of globalization is most favourable to the establishment of a law of the commons both in the peripheries and at the core of the capitalist system. However, given the persistent dominance of the individual-based property paradigm, the legitimacy of the commons on legal grounds remains problematic. Certainly the recognition and protection of the commons challenge the legal regime of property in force and query about the possible limits that the law may impose upon property rights. It is evident that the true core of the commons discourse as a legal discourse rests upon its relation with property and depends on the notion of property that we assume as normative. The Hohfeldian idea of property as a bundle of rights offers a good starting point for articulating a legal theory of the commons under positive law.