《中美经贸协议》中商业秘密的规定及我国应对路径

商业秘密的保护已经成为了《中美经贸协议》规制的主要问题,《中美经贸协议》对我国商业秘密保护提出了更高的要求。通过从文本格式和文本内容两个角度分析《中美经贸协议》关于商业秘密的规定,指出我国商业秘密保护法律模式及现行法律关于商业秘密保护的规定存在的不足和缺陷。我国应当从宏观上转变商业秘密保护的法律模式建立商业秘密专门法保护制度,现阶段应当加强我国涉外经贸中商业秘密保护的法律规范、修改商业秘密的刑事保护规定、增大政府商业秘密保护中的义务。     

我国商业秘密法律保护制度探析

为应对经济全球化的发展,维护公平竞争的市场经济,更好地保护我国的商业秘密,对我国商业秘密的法律保护制度进行探析具有十分重大的理论价值和实践意义。本文从商业秘密法律保护的必要性入手,对我国商业秘密法律保护的立法现状进行探讨,试对完善我国商业秘密的法律保护制度提出建议。     

浅论我国商业秘密保护法律制度的完善

我国的商业秘密保护的立法比较晚,并且对商业秘密的保护分散在不同的法律中,对商业秘密的保护不系统,本文在阐述商业秘密法律保护现状及存在的问题的基础上谈一些完善保护商业秘密的立法建议.     

论我国商业秘密的法律保护

随着知识经济时代的到来，竞争越来越激烈，商业秘密已成为当今市场竞争的核心武器，确立商业秘密保护的法律制度十分重要。因此，我国逐渐对商业秘密的法律保护问题加以重视。本文通过对商业秘密的概念，法律特征，商业秘密侵权的构成要件等问题进行阐述，分析我国商业秘密保护现状，试图对我国商业秘密保护法律体系的进一步完善提出建议。     

Trips协议与我国商业秘密的法律保护

“商业秘密是一种非公共财产和非公有知识的东西。”进入二十世纪以来,其保护已经在世界范围内引起了广泛的重视,本文力图通过比较分析我国商业秘密法律保护现状与商业秘密的国际保护状况,找出我国商业秘密的法律保护与Trips协议之间的差距,进而提出有关我国商业秘密保护的建议,以期促进我国商业秘密法律保护制度的完善。     

我国商业秘密保护的法律现状及完善建议

我国商业秘密保护的法律体系虽已初步形成,但涉及多部法律,整体而言,还存在法律体系分散不统一,相关法条和具体规定有待系统化、规范化,对商业秘密权利人的保护有待加强,对商业秘密侵权行为打击惩罚力度不够等不足。因此,必须尽快完善我国现有的商业秘密法律保护体系,在借鉴国外立法先进经验的基础上,构建一套全面的商业秘密保护法律制度体系,使商业秘密在我国得到充分有效的保护。     

论美国法中证据相关商业秘密的保护

商业秘密的价值巨大,为了保护商业秘密的价值,必须严格保护其秘密性.但是在诉讼过程中,尤其是商业秘密作为争议的焦点时,商业秘密的权利人对其控制减弱,使商业秘密失密的可能性增加.美国的法律制度对商业秘密的保护较为发达,对诉讼中商业秘密的保护有充分的认识,但是无论联邦法律还是地方法律都没有系统规定诉讼中商业秘密的保护制度.梳理总结美国法中商业秘密的相关理论及诉讼中对商业秘密的不同保护措施,以期对我国有关制度提供借鉴.     

论我国商业秘密的保护

商业秘密属于知识产权范畴，随着知识经济的到来，人们日益关注对商业秘密的保护，如何有效防止商业秘密的流失，保护商业秘密不受侵犯，已提上法律的议事日程。本文拟对商业秘密的构成要件、商业秘密的保护等相关法律问题展开探讨。     

论我国商业秘密的保护

商业秘密属于知识产权范畴,随着知识经济的到来,人们日益关注对商业秘密的保护,如何有效防止商业秘密的流失,保护商业秘密不受侵犯,已提上法律的议事日程。本文拟对商业秘密的构成要件、商业秘密的保护等相关法律问题展开探讨。     

我国商业秘密法律保护制度的现状分析

商业秘密由依靠私力保护到国家司法给予救助,经历了比较漫长的过程。随着侵犯商业秘密案件的日益增多,运用法律手段,特别是通过制定专门法律保护商业秘密权利人的利益已成为各国立法的趋势。中国商业秘密法律保护的建立和发展基本上顺应了这样一种趋势,但是,不可否认也存在一些问题,对问题的分析有肋于在综合其他国家商业秘密法律保护制度优良的基础上,建设和完善我国商业秘密法律保护制度。     

法理和情理

情感并非只能是任性的和不公正的,并非不能作为法律价值的终极来源.从中国儒家的传统哲学思想出发,一种"中和"的情感是可能通过修身渠道获得的,它可以称为情理.以修身作为治国根本,实质上是奠定社会形而上的价值基础的根本.情理可从修身中被发现,并进入日常生活的正义认知中.在法律推理中,情理可以弥补现代法律的价值亏空.     

Legal Theory for Legal Empiricists

There is a widespread view that one does either theory or empirical work, and that theory and empiricism represent distant concerns, opposing worldviews, and perhaps distinct mentalities or personalities. This prevalent view has deep roots and is also the result of pragmatic and understandable tendencies toward division of intellectual labor. Against this view, this essay suggests that the relations between theory and empirical study ought to be understood as more intimate and that making legal theory an explicit focus can improve empirical scholarship. We pursue this claim by articulating a basis for legal theory and by showing how that basis illuminates both the application and design of empirical research on law. Legal theory, we argue, follows jurisprudence in interrogating the law as a set of coercive normative institutions. The upshot of this approach is a recognition that an interdisciplinary analysis of law must rely on both a theory (explicit or implicit) of the way law's power and its normativity align and an account of the way in which this discursive cohabitation manifests itself institutionally. We thus argue that legal theory is necessary in order to draw fruitfully on empirical research and further claim that legal theory provides guidance both for setting up an empirical research agenda on law and for designing research into specific topics.     

Legal Positivism and Legal Disagreements

This paper deals with the possibility of faultless disagreement in law. It does this by looking to other spheres in which faultless disagreement appears to be possible, mainly in matters of taste and ethics. Three possible accounts are explored: the realist account, the relativist account, and the expressivist account. The paper tries to show that in the case of legal disagreements, there is a place for an approach that can take into account our intuitions in the sense that legal disagreements are genuine and at times faultless.     

法律理性与法律的技术化

现代法律制度的每一个建构性要素及其运作过程的每一个环节,都表现出很强的技术性特征,这使得法律成为一种典型的社会技术。法律技术铸成了法律的确定性,使法律规范系统化;它划定了行为合法与不法的界限,使人们对自己的行为后果更有预期。可以说,技术化是法律理性在形式方面最重要的表现,而实践的特点决定了理性必然是形式理性与实质理性的统一,作为法律价值的载体和法律目的的支持系统,法律技术本身也是法治的基本条件之一。因此,法律的技术性特征及其意义应当受到重视,法律技术的功能也有待于我们加以深入地研究。     

法律发展与法律知识化

法律发展首先必须面对合法化与价值诉求问题，而这一切又无不与作为基础的法律主体的知识立场密切相关。如何谋求“法律知识化”、话语合法化以及法律主体的价值立场的有效运作，是法律文明、有效发展的必要途径，也是法律发展话语摒弃规则主义弊端制约而建构自我所不可回避的挑战。从西方国家的经验看，现代法治的确立与以理性化为核心的法律知识化过程密不可分，法律知识化由知识对法律的关系提升、扩展为一种法律观，再由一种法律观落实为一种价值观、方法论，并由此引导法律主体追求和建设一种新的法律文明。更为重要的是，“法律知识化”使法治成为近代法律发展的本质性，把知识化原则导入法律发展领域，从而实现了法律发展的革命性变革。     

Legal Principles and Legal Theory

Current legal theory is concerned with the presence of principles in law partly because they are at the core of Dworkin's criticisms of Hart's rule of recognition. Hart's theory is threatened by the possibility that the identification of some principles follows an extremely relaxed rule of recognition, or even no rule at all. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive test to ascertain what is the case in actual practice. On the other hand, the evaluative arguments which support Dworkin's proposal of principled adjudication are forceful but not conclusive. Moreover, since ultimate controversy over values is plausible, judicial discretion may sometimes be inevitable.     

Legal Transplants and Legal Downloads

Online legal education has the potential to address a global audience. But little attention has been paid so far to the question of how teaching methods developed in one jurisdiction interact with the substantive law of another legal system. This paper challenges the assumption of the independence of substantive law and law teaching on the basis of a comparative evaluation of online law tutorials in Scotland and Germany. It concludes that the transplanting legal education, as transplanting substantive law, can have unpredictable consequences.     

Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited

This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal reasoning that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them.     

Global Legal Interaction and Legal Cultures

Abstract . The legal discourse of a steadily growing European legal community and universal legal harmonization is misleading since it abstracts completely from the cultural dimension of law which consist of patterns of interpretation and behavioral routines with respect to law. The article makes use of abundant literature in administrative sciences, international management research and socio-psychological studies in Intercultural Communication in order to propose indicators for a comparison of legal cultures in the areas of European legal integration, international commercial transactions and international lawyering.