论渔业权的法律构造、物权效力和转让

我国渔业法未沿袭渔政主管机关———渔会———渔民三层结构的渔业权主体模式,舍去了共同渔业权或专用渔业权———入渔权的法律构造,而是采取了由渔政主管部门直接将渔业权授予渔业经营者的制度,由此导致了渔业权的取得方式、渔业行政管理、渔业权的排他性以及优先性等方面的变化。我国现行渔业法完全禁止捕捞权的转让,过于僵硬,可以承认若干例外,以满足实际需要。     

渔业权与海域使用权的冲突与协调

海域使用权与渔业权之间存在结构性冲突,解决两种权利的冲突成为海域使用制度完善的重要基点。传统渔业权中包含养殖权和捕捞权两种性质截然不同的权利。若将其中的养殖权从渔业权中剥离,纳入海域使用权之中,把海域使用权作为用益物权之一,规定进民法典物权编中,而把捕捞权作为自然资源使用权,纳入渔业法调整,问题即可得以解决。     

渔业权的物权结构及其规范意涵

渔业权并非我国立法上明确规定的概念,其在司法实践中存在着差异化的救济规则。《民法典》物权编从"养殖的权利"和"捕捞的权利"两方面初步规定了渔业权的权利构成和私权属性。养殖权和捕捞权虽然均含有渔业因素,但在客体性质、权利效力、运行逻辑上具有显著差异。养殖权系主体通过对特定水域的现实支配以获得养殖物的权利,符合用益物权的基本特征。但为实现相关法律的体系化构造,养殖权应从渔业权中独立出来,归入海域使用权或土地承包经营权。从生存权保障及事实物权的法律确认角度,通过对物权支配性和客体特定性的宽松解释,宜将渔业权界定为渔民这一特定主体所享有的捕捞水生动植物并获得其所有权的法定物权。除渔业权渔业之外,渔民以外的其他主体经营渔业的权利均来源于授权许可。     

捕捞渔船安全国际海事立法之观察

国际海事组织在过去几十年一直努力推动捕捞渔船安全国际立法工作。通过对主要的涉渔海事公约以及港口国监督措施,特别是《1993年捕捞渔船安全议定书》和《捕捞渔船船员培训、发证和值班标准国际公约》的探讨,建议中国渔业主管部门、渔业界及行业组织重视国际渔业法研究和普及工作,积极行使国际法权利和履行国际法义务,参照相关海事公约及时修改国内海事安全和渔业法规,依法建立全国统一的渔船和渔船船员登记系统,增强对捕捞渔船现代化和渔船船员培训事业的扶持力度,促进中国海洋渔业的稳健发展。     

渔权之争：论双边渔业协定应考量的若干问题

两国订立双边渔业协定涉及到多个方面的问题,不仅需要考虑管理和执法的便利,也需要兼顾渔民历史作业习惯与传统的渔区;不仅需要公平分配捕捞配额,更需要考虑各自的捕捞能力、渔业资源的养护以及可持续的利用;不仅要因应当前的渔业纠纷,还要考虑对于今后海域划界可能产生的影响;不仅要与国内相关立法协调,还要与国际社会既存的硬法、软法配套;不仅要考虑渔业自身的因素,还需要考虑对于航行、海难救助、海底探矿与采矿、科学研究、水下考古等活动的可能的影响.只有兼顾和平衡各方因素与利益的协定,才可能真正定纷止争.     

公共养老金投资中的受信人义务

公共养老金由于其特殊的缴付机制和委托管理特征,管理机构的投资运营行为很容易偏离受益人利益最大化的立法目标。针对公共养老金具有的资本属性和公共政策性,我们可以吸收美国《雇员退休收入保障法案》中的受信人制度安排及最新理论成果,以此来解决我国基本养老保险金管理实践中存在的问题,即应以信托制构造我国公共养老金管理的法律模式,并确立我国公共养老金管理机构对受益人(或计划参与人)的受信人义务。     

中华人民共和国渔业行政执法船舶管理办法

第一条 为加强渔业行政执法船舶管理,根据《中华人民共和国渔业法》等法律、法规的规定,制定本办法。 第二条 本办法所称渔业行政执法船舶是指各级渔业行政主管部门执行渔业行政执法任务的专用公务船、艇,以下     

构建我国的诉讼信托制度——以环境资源保护诉讼为视角

二十世纪七十年代,美国密执安大学的萨克斯教授提出了公共信托理论,并将公共信托理论予以复兴并成为保护环境的法律诉求的有力工具.诉讼信托是以公共信托理论为基础发展起来的,包含委托人、受托人、受益人三方的一种诉讼制度.然而中国的《信托法》对诉讼信托持否定态度,为此,有必要在进一步分析在中国构建诉讼信托的原因和意义的基础上,对诉讼信托制度进行合理构建.     

渔业补贴与渔业资源保护:现状和未来

最近几年,越来越多的证据表明了渔业资源危机的严重性,而造成这种危机的重要原因之一是很多国家实行的对渔业的补贴政策。国际社会对渔业补贴这种现状的不满已经持续了十几年。WTO内进行的渔业补贴谈判得到了大多数成员的支持,如果多哈回合可以成功结束,对渔业补贴规则的改革指日可待。为此,我国应未雨绸缪,逐步开展对渔业补贴种类的调整,取消那些最容易被挑战的渔业补贴,以比较容易符合新的渔业补贴修改意见的方式,支持渔业的可持续发展。     

美国环境公共信托理论及环境公益保护机制对我国的启示

美国密执安大学的约瑟夫·萨克斯教授最早将公共信托理论引入环境保护领域,创立了环境公共信托理论,在环境公共利益保护方面提出了一种新的理论构想和制度设计。环境公共信托理论是以保护环境公共利益为根本目的的一种公益信托理论。该理论通过确立环境资源的社会公共财产属性和双重所有权权属关系,明确政府作为管理、保护环境资源的法律责任主体,赋予公民以及后代人环境权,设置环境公益诉讼制度,借助司法力量监督环境法律的实施,以达到保护环境资源生态价值和环境公共利益的目的。环境公共信托理论的环境公益保护理论构想和制度设计,对提升我国的环境法制理念,促进我国的环境法制的完善具有重要的借鉴意义。     

论渔业权

渔业权不是一项独立的民事权利类型,渔业权制度的存废与海域的法律地位紧密相连。作为内国法上的渔业权制度,在英美法系国家并非一种财产权而是一种公权,体现为国家对海洋渔业资源进行管理的许可证制度;在以日本为代表的大陆法系国家,渔业权是一种由本权和派生权利共同组成的双层权利结构。由于我国明确宣示海域为国家所有,传统法上的渔业权制度被现有的不动产物权体系所吸收,若创设渔业权,将破坏物权法上的一物一权原则。     

WTO渔业补贴谈判研究

渔业补贴诱导产能过剩和过度捕渔。渔业资源的枯竭之忧尚需从遏制不利渔业资源可持续发展的渔业补贴着手。建立和完善渔业补贴规则是WTO成员的共识。多轮谈判与交锋中出现的三派不同的主张最终以“糅合式方案”载入2007年11月30日的渔业补贴规则文本草案。     

论大陆法国家对信托的引进及其进路

信托的本质是一种财产管理运作方式,从设立到成立、再到运行受到普通法与衡平法的共同调整,对英美普通法与衡平法互动的双重法律体系有着强烈的依赖,而普通法与衡平法互动的双重法律体系又是英美法的特色。尽管没有衡平法和双重法律体系,大陆法系国家还是可以通过功能移植的方式引进信托的。马尔他与魁北克就是成功移植信托的两个实例。     

日本信托法修改及其信托观念的发展

日本是大陆法系中引入信托法比较早的国家,日本的信托法经过80多年的发展,在吸收和转化原本来自英美法的信托制度方面有着丰富的经验。这些经验对于我国信托法的理论和实践发展都有重要的借鉴意义。2006年12月,日本信托法进行了大量修改。研究此次修改以及这一修改背后的理论变迁,对我国信托法理论的发展应该有所补益。     

论国际商事仲裁的保密性与物权变动的公示公信原则——评国际商事仲裁的保密性对《中华人民共和国物权法》第二十八条、第三十一条的影响

仲裁的保密性被认为是国际商事仲裁的显著特征之一,而公示公信是物权法上一个很重要的原则。保密性在于不为公众所知,公示公信在于为公众所知并相信。如果法律在某一个方面同时存在两者,其冲突就会导致两者或者其中之一无效。笔者以商事仲裁的保密性为切入点,通过对《中华人民共和国物权法》第28条、第31条的逻辑分析得出物权公示公信原则有可能与国际商事仲裁的保密性相冲突,并讨论冲突所带来的影响和提出适当的解决途径。     

Revised federal allotments to states for social services expenditures pursuant to the Title XX--Social Services Block Grant Act; promulgation for fiscal year 1983-HHS. Revised notification

Public Law 97-248, enacted September 3, 1982, among other things, amended Sec. 1101(a) of the Social Security Act, as amended, (Act) to define the term State when used in Title XX to no longer include American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. The Federal allotments to States for social services under Section 2003 of the Act which were promulgated in Vol. 46, No. 229 of the Federal Register page 58186 on November 30, 1981, included American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Accordingly, the promulgation contained in such document is rescinded and the promulgation, as revised, is set forth in this issuance.     

CLOUD act agreements from an EU perspective

For many years, transatlantic cooperation between the EU and the US in the area of personal data exchange has been a subject of special interest on the part of lawmakers, courts – including supranational ones – NGOs and the public. When implementing recent reform of data protection law, the European Union decided to further strengthen guarantees of the protection of privacy in cyberspace. At the same time, however, it faced the practical problem of how to ensure compliance with these principles in relation to third countries. The approach proposed in the GDPR, which is based on a newly-defined territorial scope of application, clearly indicates an attempt to apply EU rules extraterritorially in relation to data processors in third countries.Irrespective of EU activity, the United States has also introduced its own regulations addressing the same problem. An example is the federal law adopted in 2018, specifying how to execute national court orders for the transfer of electronic data. The CLOUD Act was established in response to legal doubts raised in the Microsoft v United States case regarding the transfer of electronic data stored in the cloud by US obliged entities to law enforcement authorities, as well as in cases where this data is physically located in another country and its transfer could result in violating the legal norms of a foreign jurisdiction. The CLOUD Act also facilitates bilateral international agreements that enable the cross-border transfer of e-evidence for the purposes of ongoing criminal proceedings. Both the content of the new regulations and the model proposed by the US legislature for future agreements concluded on the basis of the CLOUD Act can be seen as an alternative to regulations arising from EU law.The purpose of this paper is to analyse the CLOUD Act and CLOUD Act Agreements from the perspective of EU law and, in particular, attempt to answer the question as to whether this new legal mechanism brings the EU and the USA closer to finding common ground with regard to a coherent model of exchange and protection of personal data.     

公物概念及其在我国的适用——兼析《物权法草案(征求意见稿)》相关条款

公物是行政主体所直接管理的、用于维护与促进社会公共利益的财物,它包括公用物与共用物,前者是直接供诸行政机关及其工作人员执行公务时使用的物品,后者是直接供诸社会民众生活或生产时使用的物品。公物虽然由国家及地方政府、公共团体管理,但是其相关权利属于公法上的权利,与国家对于国有企业的权利殊为不同。我国现有《物权法草案(征求意见稿)》在一定程度上混淆了公物上所有权的法律性质。     

Dilution in the United States and European Union (and beyond) Part II: testing for blurring

Legal context. Dilution by blurring has often been accused ofbeing a vague concept which is difficult to understand and whichhas no sensible limits. Mindful of the need for certainty inthis area, the US Senate and House of Representatives have passedthe Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2006. This Bill (which isdiscussed more generally in Part I) includes a definition ofblurring and a six-point test for blurring. Meanwhile, the EuropeanUnion has been steadily building up jurisprudence in this area. Key points. This part of the article focuses on dilution byblurring, considering how blurring is defined, how it is testedfor and whether US and EU blurring protection is in compliancewith the jurisdictions’ international obligations in thisarea (discussed in Part I). In particular, it considers thenew definition of, and test for, blurring under the US TrademarkDilution Revision Act 2006, and compares the position underthat Bill to the situation in the EU. Practical significance. Assuming that it enters into law, theRevision Act 2006 has serious implications for the proprietorsof famous marks doing business in the US. This article willinform the owners of such marks what protection they will benefitfrom and how this will differ from the protection they willget in the EU.     

Alaska public health law reform

The Turning Point Model State Public Health Act (Turning Point Act), published in September 2003, provides a comprehensive template for states seeking public health law modernization. This case study examines the political and policy efforts undertaken in Alaska following the development of the Turning Point Act. It is the first in a series of case studies to assess states' consideration of the Turning Point Act for the purpose of public health law reform. Through a comparative analysis of these case studies and ongoing legislative tracking in all fifty states, researchers can assess (1) how states codify the Turning Point Act into state law and (2) how these modernized state laws influence or change public health practice, leading to improved health outcomes.