The Tide in Favour of Equality: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and England and Wales

The tide in favour of legal equality for gay and lesbian individualsand couples continues to roll forward on both sides of the Atlantic.In Canada, the federal Parliament recently passed legislation(the Civil Marriage Act) (CMA) that extends the legal capacityto marry for civil purposes to same-sex couples throughout thecountry. This change in the law was driven not by the executiveand legislative branches of government but by the courts, interpretingand applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (theCharter). On the other side of the Atlantic, in England andWales, the Westminster Parliament in 2004 passed legislation(the Civil Partnership Act) (CPA) that will enable same-sexcouples to obtain legal recognition of their relationships,and to access most of the legal rights and responsibilitiesoffered to married couples. However, unlike the Canadian legislation,civil marriages between same-sex couples will still not be legallyrecognized. This article considers whether the English courtswill also facilitate the legal recognition of same-sex civilmarriage, like their Canadian counterparts. The author concludesthat, in light of recent case law, there is an increasinglystrong argument that the opposite-sex marriage requirement inEngland and Wales violates Article 14 (the equality provision)of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which isincorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, 1998. However,the author also concludes that there are a number of reasonsto be cautious that a positive result would flow, at this point,from a domestic court challenge to the opposite-sex marriagerequirement.     

关于匿名诉讼的立法思考——拷问实名诉讼的缺憾

不论英美法系国家和地区的民事诉讼规则,还是大陆法系国家和地区的民事诉讼法,都规定当事人以实名的方式进行诉讼。不过,崇尚实践理性的英美法系国家的法官,基于案件的实际情况有时许可当事人以匿名的方式进行诉讼。我国现行《民事诉讼法》有关起诉条件中应记明当事人姓名的规定已不能适应实践的需要。民事诉讼法应该规定当事人具有匿名诉讼的权利,法院应该按照一定的程序规则,在当事人匿名和公开其姓名之间权衡利弊以决定是否同意当事人的匿名诉讼申请。     

Change of Political Allegiance in Parliamentary Life

Since Confederation in Canada and until the 39th federal general election of 23 January 2006, no fewer than 246 members of the House of Commons have changed political allegiance. This number includes only those in the federal portion of Canadian public life and only those in the Lower House of Parliament. At the time of writing, there were 16 Members of the House of Commons who, at one time or another in their careers, left one political party for another. The realities of floor‐crossing and the consequences of such an admittedly risky venture in public life must be assumed to affect parliamentarians’ views about the creation of rules, whether legal, political or mixed, in respect of changes of political allegiance. Through a close examination of the Constitution Act and other Acts of Parliament this article investigates whether such rules exist in Canada. It also provides an overview of recent attempts at codification and lessons learnt from foreign jurisdictions, such as South Africa and New Zealand. The article concludes by referring to Edmund Burke’s famous Address to the Electors of Bristol and observing that the logical consequence for current Canadian political life of Burke’s thoughts may be that a Member of Parliament must be free to vote according to their conscience and therefore may only be held to account to those who elected them until the following election.     

历史维度中的实体法与程序法

在历史中揭示,程序法和实体法共同脱胎于诉讼法,此时的诉讼法是诉未分解时的诉讼法,而现今之诉讼法虽名为诉讼法,实则程序法而已;对民事诉讼中的几组概念的混用进行澄清;实体法和程序法的合理关系是自足与互助的,并质疑时下流行的“层次论”观点。     

当事人主导抑或法院主导？——传统民事诉讼模式的误判与归位

将“辩论主义”或“对抗制”作为传统民事诉讼模式的识别标准,都存在以偏概全的缺陷。在“当事人主张论证一法院裁判”的基本构造下,从程序运作层面、案件事实层面和法律适用层面三个层面考察,无论大陆法系还是英美法系从来没有绝对的当事人主导或法院主导。诉权和审判权之间协调配置是各国传统民事诉讼程序设计的共同法理。     

Access to donor insemination: Canadian ideals--UK law and practice

Reproductive technology has made a huge impact on society, exposing many long-standing, unresolved anomalies in our values and traditions. Access to medically assisted reproduction is particularly controversial, raising medical, legal and ethical issues. The 1980s saw increasing demands across several jurisdictions for clear legal rules, the hope being expressed in Canada that "the law may reflect the community's level of tolerance; but...also stretch or fashion it in the interests of a worthy goal." The Canadian Law Reform Commission recommended that, with regard to donor insemination, "protection for the traditional family should not be incorporated in legislation" and that "access should be limited only in terms of the cost and scarcity of resources", selection not being based on "family status, sexual orientation and so on". This paper attempts a comparative examination of UK legislation on reproductive technology in this light, with particular focus on the rationing of access to donor insemination.     

Panel recommends significant changes to federal law against discrimination

In a report released on 23 June 2000, the Review Panel tasked by the federal Minister of Justice with reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Act made some welcome recommendations for improving the Act and the way the Canadian Human Rights Commission functions. Three are of particular significance: the recommendation that "social condition" be added to the prohibited grounds for discrimination listed in the Act; the recommendation that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should have, under its governing legislation, the duty to monitor and report to Parliament and the UN Human Rights Committee on the federal government's compliance with international human rights treaties regarding economic, social, and cultural rights; and the recommendation that "gender identity" should be expressly added to the Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.     

民事诉讼法证据制度对海关行政处罚证据制度的借鉴

民事诉讼与行政处罚在认识过程与结构上有许多相似之处,这也决定了二者在具体制度设计上的相互借鉴。海关行政处罚的现有证据制度在很大程度上也是借鉴了原来民事诉讼法中证据的相关规定。2012年修订的民事诉讼法对于证据制度作了很多修改,尤其是强化了当事人举证的责任,使得民事诉讼向当事人主义更进一步。本文结合民事诉讼法修订的内容以及民事诉讼中原有相关证据规则,对海关行政处罚现有证据制度不足与潜在风险进行了分析,提出应借鉴民事诉讼证据制度修订的内容修改原海关行政处罚证据制度。     

Barriers to the ballot: implications for the development of state and national crime policies

In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Shelby County v. Holder that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which included the preclearance formula for determining which state and local jurisdictions needed to obtain federal approval before changing their election laws and voting procedures, was unconstitutional. By requiring federal approval, this provision prevented historically repressive jurisdictions from enacting covert policies to hinder non-whites from voting. The ruling in Shelby County is problematic because methods in use across the country prevent non-white citizens from casting their ballots, leaving their interests unaddressed. As people of color hold different attitudes and views than whites towards specific criminal justice measures, contemporary barriers to the ballot have potential implications for criminal law and policy. Consequently, analyses of two contemporary methods of denying non-whites a voice in government are warranted: felon disenfranchisement and voter identification laws. After considering the disproportionate effects of these laws on non-white voting, the paper reveals the potential harm that may result from Shelby County if similar laws spread to jurisdictions no longer covered by the Voting Rights Act.     

Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights Cases? A Strategic Explanation

Despite the impressive body of scholarship dedicated to analyzing litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Supreme Court of Canada, there remains an incomplete understanding of why these cases come to the Court. Notably absent from the literature is sustained analysis of why governments, the most frequent class of appellant, bring Charter cases to the Supreme Court. Recent work has addressed the decision to appeal by the U.S. federal government and state attorneys general and provides an excellent theoretical starting point. I use case data collected from interviews with federal government lawyers and law reports to test whether the Canadian federal government's decisions to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases are also "procedurally rational." I conclude that these decisions are primarily shaped by strategic considerations related to policy costs, case importance, reviewability, and the prospect of winning on appeal, regardless of the party in power. In the process, the article further extends the application of strategic decisionmaking theory with regard to law and courts beyond judicial behavior, and beyond the U.S. context.     

价值视角的转变与正义模式的演绎——评美国1998年《ADR 法》

经过联邦法院对 ADR 的十几年的探索实验,美国国会最终通过了1998年《ADR 法》,为 ADR 措施的开展发放了“绿卡”。该法要求所有的美国联邦法院实施“当事人服务型”的 ADR 措施,并允许法院强制当事人参加 ADR 程序。联邦法院 ADR 部门要想成功有效的实施该法,对各种 ADR 措施进行选择,以使其与现有的法院体系相兼容,同时为当事人提供便利,首先要协调好 ADR 措施所内涵的正义模式与一直引导着法院的传统的判决型的正义模式的关系。     

对我国民事抗诉制度的反思与重构

关于民事抗诉制度,学界和司法界长期存在“废”、“立”两种针锋相对的观点。本文认为,现行民事抗诉制度的确存在不少问题,但这些问题的根本原因在于,现行民事抗诉程序是由两个性质完全不同的程序——民事抗诉程序和民事再审程序——“组装”而成的,严重违反了法理和程序设计的规则。本文认为,要使民事抗诉制度摆脱目前的困境,必须将民事再审程序从现行民事抗诉程序中剥离出去,并对民事抗诉程序进行重新设计。     

建立我国民事诉讼审前准备程序的必要与建议

民事诉讼中的审前程序是开庭审理前的一个重要诉讼阶段,我国《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(下称《民诉法》)及最高法院的相关司法解释都对审前程序的相关制度做了规定。但这些规定较零散,不成体系,相互之间缺乏协调,甚至相互矛盾;又由于在司法实践中,各地法院情况不一,法官的理解、认知能力不一,导致在实践中操作也不一致。现在各地法院摸索创新出的许多民事审前程序规则实际上带有程序规则与实体规则存在的双重困惑:既不能保持已有的审前程序的正当性与效率性,又难以体现我国现有审判方式改革后所要求达到的公正与效率的目标。规范、统一审前准备程序,改变诉讼拖延和民事诉讼程序过程中规定散乱、执行标准不一的状况,是民事诉讼制度从改革走向完善,从宏观到微观的必然。     

论民事诉讼证据的收集

民事诉讼证据制度是民事诉讼制度的核心。目前我国尚未形成完整的民事诉讼证据制度体系。我国现行民事诉讼证据收集制度存在弊端,致使当事人搜集证据困难。应完善证据收集程序,加强民诉证据收集的法律保障,笔者建议尽快制定通过《证据法》,以法律形式完善证据提供的一般法律义务制度;完善当事人违反证据提供义务的法律制裁制度;完善证人出庭作证制度。     

The Government as Litigant: Further Tests of the Case Selection Model

We develop a model of the plaintiff's decision to file a lawsuitthat has implications for how differences between the federalgovernment and private litigants translate into differencesin trial rates and plaintiff win rates at trial. Our case selectionmodel generates a set of predictions for relative trial ratesand plaintiff win rates, depending on the type of case and whetherthe government is defendant or plaintiff. To test the model,we use data on about 474,000 cases filed in federal districtcourt between 1979 and 1994 in the areas of personal injuryand job discrimination, in which the federal government andprivate parties work under roughly similar legal rules. We findbroad support for the predictions of the model.     

美国行政程序证据规则分析

美国行政程序证据规则独立于民事和刑事诉讼证据规则。1946年联邦行政程序法对行政程序证据规则作出原则规定,联邦法院一系列判例丰富和发展了行政程序证据规则。行政官员裁决案件不受联邦证据规则约束,不受传闻证据规则约束,但须符合实质证据规则的要求,受案卷排他原则约束。行政程序中提供证据是当事人的权利,也是当事人的责任,除法律另有规定外,任何证据都可接受。行政程序证明责任分配原则采用"谁主张谁举证"。     

民事诉讼回避制度的两个基本问题

从我国民事诉讼领域观察,回避制度在回避原因、适用程序两个方面存在着结构性的缺陷,在实践中导致侵害当事人诉讼权利的后果。有必要对我国回避制度进行规范分析,并对司法实践运作状况加以考察,对民事诉讼回避制度进行修改、完善。     

合意管辖制度：法理、问题与对策

合意管辖既是民事诉讼中当事人的一项程序权利,又是民事诉讼特有的一项制度。合意管辖制度具有着源自程序主体性原则以及处分权主义的法理基础,正因如此,各国都在民事诉讼立法中规定了合意管辖制度。就我国而言,虽然立法中也有关于合意管辖的规定,但其中还存在着合意管辖的案件范围太窄,合意管辖的法院双轨制等不完善之处,亟待通过对民事诉讼法的修订而得到完善。     

The false claims act and the eroding scienter in healthcare fraud litigation

This article addresses the federal government's expansive methods in tackling healthcare fraud, particularly in misapplying the False Claims Act. Although tasked with the obligation to curtail the fraudulent submission of Medicare & Medicaid claims, the U.S. government must rein in the current trend to utilize the False Claims Act against smaller medical providers. As the Act's original focus has ebbed in significance, the government has increasingly applied the False Claims Act to circumstances that do not evince actual fraud. In doing so, federal courts have effectively eroded the statute's critical scienter requirement. The federal common-law doctrines of "payment by mistake" and "unjust enrichment" adequately address the payment of non-fraudulent, albeit false, Medicare & Medicaid claims. Yet the federal government pursues these appropriate remedies only rarely and in the alternative, essentially when the government fails under the False Claims Act. Thus, this article argues for reform, calling for a clearer delineation between remedial and punitive measures. In cases involving smaller medical providers, courts should strictly limit the False Claims Act to those instances where fraud is clearly manifest.