职场性骚扰雇主替代责任说质疑

雇主对职场中发生的性骚扰行为承担责任的性质,存在着替代责任说和自己责任说两种相对立的观点。解决职场性骚扰情况下雇主责任的承担有两种路径：侵权责任法和劳动法。通过侵权责任法解决职场性骚扰的责任,雇主承担对自己安全保障义务违反的不作为责任,属于过错责任,自己责任。在劳动社会保障法领域,雇主承担对劳动者保护的法定义务,应该提供给劳动者较好的工作环境,如果雇员违反法定义务致使雇员受到损害,雇主应该承担赔偿责任,是违反劳动法规定的法定义务承担的后果,其实质仍然是一种自己责任。     

论经济法调制主体及其工作人员的责任追究模式与分担方式

对经济法调制主体及其工作人员进行责任追究时,应以其违反了法定的调制程序而不是行为造成了实体损害为前提。调制主体本身不应当对其工作人员实施的普通违法调制行为承担责任,但基于实际需要,应代位承担赔偿责任,这种赔偿责任应纳入传统的国家赔偿责任。     

The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law

The concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) has becomea useful tool in international criminal law. It allows courtsto hold individuals criminally liable for group activities towhich they have contributed in a criminally relevant way. Theconcept allows for an attribution of criminal responsibilityof unforeseen consequences of such group activities, and itseems to enable the prosecution and the courts to extend criminalliability to high-level perpetrators that use subordinated personsfor their criminal aims. The advantages of such a tool are obvioussince the crimes under international criminal law are mostlyof a systematic, large-scale and collective character, whiledomestic criminal law mainly deals with less complex crimesthat are normally committed by individuals who can easily belinked to the crime. Due to this empirical or criminologicalfact, it seems logical that the normal modes of liability forparties to a crime used in domestic criminal law need to beadapted, and that a rather extensive assignment of criminalliability for secondary parties is justified in internationalcriminal law. This article seeks to question this assumptionby undertaking a comparative analysis of domestic modes of liability.The author aims to show, on the one hand, to what extent theconcept of JCE is in line with the general concept of partiesto a crime in domestic criminal law. On the other hand, theauthor argues that abandoning the idea of JCE as an independentmode of liability may lead to better compliance with the principlesof legality and individual criminal responsibility and therebyincrease the legitimacy of international criminal law.     

Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law

States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so.     

行业协会限制竞争行为的责任制度研究

我国《反垄断法》第46条对行业协会限制竞争行为的责任规定十分粗疏,重构责任体系实属必要。我国行业协会限制竞争行为的责任制度不应仅仅限于行政责任,而且还应当包括民事责任、刑事责任和自律责任。此外,责任追究应当根据行业协会、成员企业以及理事会在组织和实施限制竞争行为中所扮演的角色而应有所区别对待,同时执法机关有权根据行业协会及其成员企业配合检查的态度和情形而宽严相济。     

严厉的法律 举步维艰的网络产业——对《侵权责任法》第36条的质疑

从网络服务提供者的服务类型及其责任限制与反限制的基本理论来看,《侵权责任法》第36条无视网络服务提供者服务的类型,一刀切地规定网络服务提供者承担连带责任,势必加大网络服务提供者的责任,打击网络服务的积极性;无视国内外立法关于网络服务提供者侵权责任限制规则——避风港规则的规定,简单化处理网络侵权纠纷。随着《侵权责任法》的实施,将造成与《信息网络传播权保护条例》相冲突,使《信息网络传播权保护条例》的合理规定无法适用等。因此,建议删除《侵权责任法》第36条第2、3款,保留第1款,并补充一句：＂其他法律法规有规定的除外＂;或者删除第36条的规定,将网络侵权责任作为专门一节,整合《信息网络传播权保护条例》的有关规定,完善网络服务提供者侵权责任。     

国际航空犯罪法人刑事责任及其国内立法转化研究

2010年《北京公约》和《北京议定书》首次规定了国际航空犯罪法人责任,法人责任以法人的高级管理人员代表法人实施劫持航空器等国际航空犯罪为要件,法人为此承担刑事、民事或行政责任。公约对法人犯罪及其责任的立法需要转化为国内法才能适用。世界各国国内法对法人犯罪及其责任的态度差别较大,英国、加拿大、法国等国刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人刑事责任,德国国内法规定有航空犯罪的法人行政责任,意大利刑法规定有航空犯罪的法人民事责任,我国仅在个别航空犯罪中规定有法人犯罪及其刑事责任。我国法人犯罪及其刑事责任的立法和理论具有较强的包容性,可在我国刑法中取消法人犯罪法定化限制,全面规定包括航空犯罪在内的法人犯罪及其刑事责任。     

指挥官刑事责任基本理论

指挥官刑事责任是指挥官因为其下级实施了犯罪而应当承担的一种共犯责任。该理论在20世纪随着一系列重要的国际刑事司法实践而逐渐形成,并在当前主要的国际刑事法律中得到了体现。要追究指挥官的刑事责任,必须证明三点:具有上下级关系;上级知道或者应当知道下级的罪行;上级指挥官未能采取合理、必要的措施阻止犯罪或者惩罚罪犯。但是,无论是在司法实践中,还是在理论研究上,人们对这个原则还有不同的认识与做法,一个科学、合理的指挥官刑事责任理论体系还有待建立。     

Reclaiming Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law in the Darfur Case

According to the authors, the Report of the UN Commission ofInquiry on Darfur and the Security Council referral of the situationin Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC) bring tolight two serious deficiencies of the ICC Statute and, moregenerally, international criminal law: (i) the systematic ambiguitybetween collective responsibility (i.e. the responsibility ofthe whole state) and criminal liability of individuals, on whichcurrent international criminal law is grounded, and (ii) thefailure of the ICC Statute fully to comply with the principleof legality. The first deficiency is illustrated by highlightingthe notions of genocide and genocidal intent, as well as thatof joint criminal enterprise. The second is exposed by drawingattention to the uncertainties and ambiguities surrounding suchnotions as recklessness and dolus eventualis, and in additionto the frequent reliance in both international case law andthe legal literature on customary international law and looseconcepts such as proportionality. The authors finally pointout that if the ICC tries to operate as a real criminal courtunder the rule of law and shows sensitivity to the rights andinterests of the accused, US fears of politicized prosecutionwill diminish.     

雇主替代责任在我国未来侵权法中的地位

雇主替代责任是指雇主就其雇员于职责范围内实施的侵权行为对受害人承担的侵权责任。两大法系国家侵权法都对雇主替代责任作出了规定,我国民法通则没有规定雇主承担的替代责任。最高人民法院2003年司法解释虽然规定了雇主替代责任,但其规定存在严重问题,违反了两大法系国家雇主替代责任的基本精神,无法适用我国当前社会发展的需要,对受害人保护不力。我国未来侵权法应当借鉴两大法系国家雇主替代责任方面的成功经验,对雇主替代责任作出明确规定。     

美国对犯罪与违法的法理界定

本文阐述的是美国关于犯罪本质的哲学解释。刑罚既包括过错犯罪。也包括严格责任违法,这两者代表了两种不同的刑事责任类型。美国学界主张过错犯罪的要点在于其是侵害公众利益的不法行为,并非由于其危害公众利益,而是因为公众负责处罚此类行为,即它们应该得到国家的处罚。不法行为得到惩罚是因其性质严重,它们不敬重社会公认的价值;只有当行为人违反重要价值时才应得到处罚,不仅是出于对刑法实用主义的考虑,亦取决于罪刑法定原则的内涵。美国学者分析过错犯罪和不太严重的违法行为,认为后者同样存在着损害公众利益的危险。     

Does Control Make a Difference? The Moral Foundations of Shareholder Liability for Corporate Wrongs

The doctrine of limited liability, as traditionally understood, prevents shareholders from being held personally liable for corporate wrongs. Several authors have recently argued that the doctrine should be modified to make some or all shareholders individually liable for torts committed by corporations in which they hold shares. This article distinguishes three types of argument that might provide a moral basis for shareholder liability in such cases. I contend that while these arguments support holding at least some shareholders liable for corporate torts, they fail to justify a general regime of unlimited pro rata shareholder liability. The level of control shareholders exercise over a company makes an important difference to their moral duties to compensate victims of corporate wrongdoing.     

通过现有规范解决自动驾驶汽车肇事之刑事责任归属问题

以自动驾驶汽车为代表的人工智能产品在给我们带来便利的同时也带来了新的法律问题。为了解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任问题,学者或是承认自动驾驶汽车的犯罪主体地位,或是建议修改刑法增设罪名。实际上,既有的刑事法律规范足以解决自动驾驶汽车肇事的刑事责任归属问题。自动驾驶汽车的驾驶人未尽到合理注意义务的,承担过失责任;制造单位生产的自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷或者明知有缺陷而未召回的,承担产品质量相关的刑事责任;使用人发现自动驾驶汽车存在缺陷继续使用的,承担监管过失责任;入侵智能驾驶系统或者利用自动驾驶汽车实施犯罪的,承担故意犯罪的刑事责任。现阶段应克服刑事立法冲动,在既有的刑事法律规范体系内寻求解决方案,更具有现实意义。     

Finding a Proper Role for Command Responsibility

This article examines the role that command responsibility currentlyplays in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ad hoc tribunals rely in principleon a broad concept of command responsibility – which canbe applied to all superiors, including political and civilianones. However, in practice, accused persons have only rarelybeen successfully charged under this form of liability. Indeed,recent case law has gradually adopted a rigorous approach withrespect to the legal requirements of command responsibility.This has made it more difficult to establish criminal liabilityof superiors who have not directly participated in the commissionof international offences. The ad hoc tribunals have expressedan explicit preference for forms of ‘direct’ liabilitywhere the accused can be convicted both under ‘direct’and command responsibility. While the ICTY and ICTR have progressivelyinterpreted other international legal concepts to deal effectivelywith collective crimes committed by leaders of organized groups,they seem to have confined command responsibility to internationalcrimes perpetrated in typical military-like contexts.     

Pharmacy practice developments: the potential impact on pharmacists' legal liability

The practice of pharmacy has changed over recent years with a greater emphasis on the patient and the provision of patient care services. This expanded role of pharmacists as medication managers has resulted in changes to their professional responsibility and potential legal liability. Recent international case law demonstrates an increased legal liability of pharmacists in certain instances. However, pharmacists' liability in this new context in Australia is yet to be clarified.     

Any Other Contribution? Ascribing Liability for Cover-Ups of International Crimes

As the International Criminal Court (the Court or ICC) continues to develop the parameters of the various modes of liability set out in Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute, recent developments raise questions as to whether the Court can consider participation in cover-ups or concealment of crimes as giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. It is only recently that international tribunals, and notably the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), have turned to consider how international criminal law approaches responsibility for cover-ups or concealment of crimes. In reviewing how and why the ICTY has addressed individual criminal liability for engaging in cover-ups, and in light of the ICC’s Mbarushimana decision, the aim of this paper is to suggest how the ICC might consider such issues in future cases. Having demonstrated the necessity of international criminal law accounting for cover-ups, the paper will discuss how the jurisprudence, in toto, excludes the possibility of holding to account individuals who contribute to the cover up of international crimes, by whatever means, or however grave, unless they were acting on the premise of a prior agreement with the principals. By way of conclusion the paper will suggest that an expansive interpretation of Article 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute may provide a means of addressing this gap.     

产品缺陷责任主体的确定——以美国法为主要考察对象

产品缺陷责任主体,是指当缺陷产品致人损害时,应承担相应的民事责任的主体。美国法对产品责任主体的规定着眼于"商业性的销售者",通过《侵权法重述》和判例,逐步扩展了商业性销售者的范围。而产品缺陷责任主体正是以营利为目的从事营利性行为的商主体,确认产品责任之责任主体的依据恰是商法效益至上与民法追求公平这二者之间的博弈。     

论国际航空货物运输承运人责任期间

国际航空货物运输承运人责任期间关系到承运人责任的确立,是处理空运纠纷的关键所在。理论上讲,它是承运人承担责任的时间期限,也是主给付义务期间,其实际法律意义是适用航空法责任制度的期间。为保护幼稚的航空运输业,1929年《华沙公约》实行双要素标准,1999年《蒙特利尔公约》创立的单要素标准延长了承运人责任期间,加大了承运人责任。我国《民用航空法》的双要素标准已不适应实践的要求,作者建议实行"法律上掌管期间"标准。     

跨国界环境损害国家责任——外来物种入侵承责问题研究

目前,外来物种入侵已成为威胁世界物种多样性与生态环境的主要原因之一。本文在分析有关物种跨国界损害的国家责任制度的基础上,提出国家应对外来物种入侵承担国家责任的观点,即物种来源国、物种引入国以及个人应当依照共同责任原则承担责任,促使国际环境法主体特别是国家更好地约束自己的行为,最大限度地避免环境损害的发生;同时我国也应积极完善相关防治的法律制度,加强与其他国家之间的国际合作,以减轻或避免外来物种入侵给我国带来的损失。     

When do the Activities of Private Parties Trigger WTO Rules?

As scrutiny of government actions affecting international traderelations continues to increase, the relevance of private partyactions having an impact on those relations may gain in importance.Since the 1960s, the GATT member states have been cognizantof the role that private parties can play in disrupting thenatural competitive economic relationships extant between countries.A handful of GATT and WTO adjudicative determinations over theintervening four and a half decades have initiated the processof fleshing-out the conditions under which GATT/WTO legal disciplinesapply to private party action as a consequence of ascribingsuch action to the government of a relevant member state. Whatfollows reviews those adjudicative determinations and distillsthe themes and conditions for attribution articulated therein.It also reviews what could be offered GATT/WTO dispute settlementbodies were consideration to be given to the international rulesregarding state responsibility for acts of individuals. Froman examination of article 8 of the 2001 International Law Commission'sarticles on state responsibility in particular, it is suggesteda somewhat narrow understanding of attribution should obtain,and that such an understanding can be seen as in conformancewith the basic thrust of international economic law, extantGATT/WTO case law, and sound policy.