我国雇主责任主体制度的缺陷和完善之路径——兼评雇主责任、帮工责任和法人责任之关系

最高人民法院《关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》中将雇主责任、帮工责任和法人责任分别规定，各自适用不同的法律规则。这样的规定与民事诉讼法、劳动法的相关法律规则产生了冲突和矛盾，造成劳动者或者雇员因职务行为致人损害，受害人寻求救济时陷入法律适用上的困境的问题。我国未来的《民法典》应当重视这一问题的解决，在确定雇主责任时，遵循雇主责任的法理，借鉴其他国家的成功经验，注意民法与其他部门法之间的体系化协调，将现行的雇主责任、帮工责任和法人责任合并规定，统一适用雇主自己责任，排除雇主和雇员共同责任的法律规则的适用。     

最高法院关於买卖合同案件的司法解释对国际货物销售的影响

中国的货物销售法是由一组规范性法律文件构成。这些文件中,民法通则和合同法是基本的法律,最高人民法院关於这两部法律的司法解释为补充。合同法实施後,最高人民法院公布了《关於适用〈中华人民共和国合同法〉若干问题的解释（一）》（1999年）、《关於适用（中华人民共和国合同法）若干问题的解释（二）》（2009年）、《关於审理商品房买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（2003年）、     

海上保险代位求偿诉讼时效起算之特例研究

保险代位求偿权的诉讼时效起算历来存在不同理论观点,司法实务中也不尽统一。最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国保险法〉若干问题的解释（二）》对此问题虽作出了明确规定,但理论层面的争论依然存在,特别是该规定是否适用于海上保险,值得探讨。从保险代位求偿权的权利性质出发,对《关于适用〈中华人民共和国保险法〉若干问题的解释（二）》相关规定出台背景加以深入剖析,并结合海上保险的特点和海商法时效制度的特别规定,对海上保险代位求偿诉讼时效起算的法律适用提出建设性方案,以期在保险人与有责任第三人之间的利益保护方面取得平衡,并为有权机关进一步完善保险代位求偿时效的规定提供参考依据。     

ON THE PROPERTY DIVISION RULES OF THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION (III) OF THE MARRIAGE LAW OF CHINA

Property division rules in the Judicial Interpretation (III) of the Supreme Court on the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China have aroused broad controversy. Scholars misunderstand the Interpretation (III), including those related to cultural courtesy, male nesting, and dowry. The Interpretation (III) of the Marriage Law is neutral, universally applicable, and adjudicative in nature, which is consistent with the principle of gender equality.     

最高人民法院裁判、司法解释的法律地位

The decisions and the legislative interpretations of judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court of China can be considered as a part of Mainland China’s customary law, and carried by decisions and judicial interpretations. Customary law is the very source of its normal force and they are supposed to be an informal source of the law for they have the required characteristics for substantiating customary law. Accordingly, the legislative judicial interpretations and decisions of the Supreme Court that are qualified to be promulgated in the Gazette of the Supreme Court should be standardized by the requisites of customary law and have the quality supposed to be universally fair. Cao Shibing is a senior judge of the Supreme Court of China majoring in civil law, and he was awarded the doctorate of law by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Till now, he has published an amount of academic works, for instance, On Anti-monopoly Law (1996), Resolve of the Problems in the Suretyship Law of China and its Prospect (2001), On Insolvency Law of China (2003), and his translated book in Chinese (1998) —The Death of Contract (originally written by Grant Gilmore in 1995).     

知识产权刑事保护的贡献与立法完善--解读《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》

最高人民检察院、最高人民法院于2004年11月11日联合颁行的<关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释>(以下简称解释),针对我国知识产权刑事司法保护严重滞后的实际,作出若干具体界定,增强了司法实践的可操作性,是一个贡献.但侵犯知识产权犯罪中还有若干问题,远非一个司法解释所能解决,还需要立法的不断完善.     

侵犯知识产权刑事案件法律适用问题研究

2004年12月,最高人民法院和最高人民检察院颁布了《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《知识产权刑事司法解释》)。该《知识产权刑事司法解释》进一步完善了我国知识产权刑法保护的制度,但是从这一《知识产权刑事司法解释》出台之后的实践来看,这一解释在构成犯罪的情节认定等方面仍然存在一些不足之处。     

Latest evolution in the judicial intendance mechanism over arbitration in China

Based on past court practices, the Supreme Court of China promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which is in line with the international trend of justice-arbitration relationship and reflects the pro-arbitration idea, as well as making a new step forward in the evolution of China’s judicial intendance over arbitration. However, confined by current legislation and due to inadequate judicial experiences, some problems still remain in the judicial intendance mechanism for further solution. Yu Xifu, Ph.D, is a judge dealing with most maritime and foreign-related commercial cases. His research is focused on international private law, especially international commercial arbitration. His works include a monograph, i.e. Judicial Intendance and Assistance in International Commercial Arbitration; And some articles, i.e. The relation between adjudication and arbitration, The definition and legal meaning of the place of arbitration, The choice-of-law of negotiable instrument, Finding foreign law-difficulties and way-out.     

信息线索

中国首次大规模法律清理即将开始；《老年人权益保障法》修订草案开始起草；最高人民法院首提“四严”刑事政策 ；物权法适用等今年将出司法解释；中国检察机关近五年追回赃款、赃物共计240多亿元。     

A missed opportunity

Conclusion By focusing on the narrow question of the proper contractual interpretation of the extradition treaty, the Court missed the crux of theAlvarez-Machain case. The weakness in the decision, therefore, is not that the Court adopted the wrong contractual interpretation but rather that it failed frankly to address the real issue. Determining the appropriate role of the Court in formulating an international order in the post-cold war era is a difficult and complex problem. It raises delicate questions of foreign policy, separation of powers, and institutional competence. There are no easy answers. But the problem is not one that will—or should—go away. The issue must be debated in the courts, as well as in the political and academic arenas. By failing to confront this issue openly, the Supreme Court lost a valuable opportunity to start the debate and to begin to define the Court's role in forging the new world order.The authors would like to thank Detlev Vagts, Bemis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, for his insightful comments on an earlier draft.     

论合同相对性原则在处理商品房买卖合同纠纷中的司法适用——基于最高人民法院相关司法解释及其判决的评判和反思

合同相对性原则在合同法规则体系中具有基石性的地位,在实体法和司法审判方面都具有重要的功能。最高人民法院《关于审理商品房买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第25条第二款的规定背离了合同相对性原则,造成了理论上的缺陷和实践中的困境。应当对该条司法解释的原意作出诠释,使其符合合同相对性原则,尊重合同当事人的约定,赋予当事人诉权及选择权,赋予法官自由裁量权,并在司法实践中正确处理合同相对性原则与司法裁量权的关系。     

“债随物走原则”的重构与发展——企业重大资产出售中的债权人保护

最高人民法院在《改制司法解释》中规定了”债随物走原则”，但由于错误解释了其理论基础，该原则在适用中存在诸多缺陷。尽管最高人民法院最近对该原则有所发展，但仍不尽如人意。《改制司法解释》第6条的理论基础为对优惠性清偿的遏制，随着《企业破产法》第32条的生效，该条在中国实践中已无存在必要。虽然《改制司法解释》第7条的适用范围被明确为针对恶意逃债的欺诈行为，却缺乏对欺诈的具体认定标准。借鉴美国法中继受人责任制度的经验，可确立第7条适用中界定欺诈的客观标准，并改进救济手段；并可发现中国法律中缺乏在企业资产并购中对未来债权人的保护制度。扩大第7条的适用范围，可以打击所有企业资产并购中对债权人的欺诈行为。中国还需要通过建立继受人责任制度，以保护在资产并购中可能受损的未来债权人。     

证据立法问题笔谈--理想、现实与需要——刑事证据立法之我见

近十年以来,证据立法问题就一直是法学研究的热点。从最高人民法院颁布的关于民事、行政证据规定的两个司法解释开始,学者和司法部门就对证据立法投入了空前的热情。《统一证据法》草案、《刑事证据法》草案、《民事证据法》草案以及《人民法院统一证据规定》草案陆续面世,各地司法机关的证据性规定也如雨后春笋般出现。针对实践的需要和学界的呼吁,最高立法机关、司法机关也在酝酿如何从立法或司法解释层面改革我国现行的证据制度。基于此,我们约请在证据法学领域颇有造诣的几位中青年学者,就此问题发表观点．以期提供有益的参考。     

无效婚姻法律规范的冲突与协调——新《婚姻法》、《婚姻登记条例》以及最高法院相关解释的理解与适用

我国婚姻法修正后确立了无效婚姻制度,在此基础上,最高人民法院司法解释和民政部《婚姻登记条例》也相继出台,这是我国婚姻立法的一大进步。但在若干具体制度的设置上尚存在不完善之处。从理论和现实出发,探讨无效婚姻的模式、范围、程序和合法化等法律问题,分析无效婚姻法律规范的冲突,并就无效婚姻立法的协调提出自己的建议。     

保险法理论的发展与保险实务的应对及挑战——以《保险法司法解释二》的实施为中心

《最高人民法院关于适用〈保险法〉若干问题的解释（二）》就保险实务中若干重问题予以了规定,包括保险利益、追溯保险、如实告知义务的内容以及保险金给付与其他请求权之间的关系等,此次解释或采纳了最新的保险法理论研究成果,或根据保险法原理突破了传统法规的不合理适用规则,为更好地保护保险消费者权益以及保险业的发展创造了良好的司法环境.     

违法合同的效力判定路径之辨识

《合同法》第52条第5项及其司法解释对于纠正违法即无效的错误认识曾起到了历史性作用。但现有的学说及现行立法在就违法合同效力的判定路径上却存在着方向性的偏差,于司法实践并不具有真正的指导意义:区分民法内的强制规范与民法外的强制规范而异其效力,在我国并不可行;通过语义分析尚难以发现强制规范之所在;而将违法之法简单缩限为法律、行政法规上的效力性强制性规定,并不妥当,亦难以操作,且于价值及逻辑层面多有疑问;此外,将违法与损害社会公共利益予以并列,在逻辑上也有不合。故应将违法合同的效力判定纳入《合同法》第52条第4项,通过规范目的的发现及利益的衡量来最终确定违法合同的命运。     

公司股东的“除名”与“失权”:从概念到规范

我国《公司法司法解释(三)》有关条文被认为确立了股东资格解除规则,但此规则从目的、功能以及适用条件等角度而言,应属失权规则而非除名规则,且从适用条件角度而言其极大地缩限了失权规则的适用空间；从适用程序角度而言,在我国公司法体系下亦存在诸多障碍.故需要从除名规则及失权规则之来源即德国民商法中追寻其含义,在德国公司法上适用时进行正本清源的考察并辨析两者关系.在此基础上主要基于目的、功能之区别以及我国公司及公司法实践之现状,从公司法体系理性、法律规范特点等角度对除名规则与失权规则进行不同的制度设计以实现各自法律调整之目的,进而完善我国的相关公司法制.     

The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty

Abstract:  One of the core constitutional questions for national constitutional courts in the EU in the past decades has been whether to accept the claim made by the Court of Justice that EU law is the supreme law of the land, taking primacy even over conflicting national constitutional provisions. With the inclusion in the recently adopted Constitutional Treaty of a clause explicitly confirming the 'primacy of EU Law' appearances suggest that the EU is about to establish a characteristic of mature, vertically integrated, federal states such as the USA. This article argues that this view is mistaken. It develops a comprehensive jurisprudential framework for addressing constitutional conflicts, 'Constitutionalism Beyond the State' (CBC). CBS detaches the discussion of supremacy and constitutional conflict from a statist framework; provides a jurisprudential account that explains and justifies the highly differentiated, context-sensitive and dynamic set of conflict rules that national courts have in the past adopted; and provides the lacking theoretical basis for the more attractive, but undertheorised sui generis accounts of European constitutional practice that have recently gained ground in the literature. CBS provides a jurisprudentially grounded reconstructive account of why the issue of constitutional conflict is as rich and complicated in Europe as it is and why it is likely to remain so even if the Constitutional Treaty is ratified. The article then goes on to make concrete proposals addressed to national constitutional courts and the Court of Juctise respectively about how, in application of the developed approach, constitutional conflicts ought to be addressed doctrinally. It includes a proposal to read the new 'constitutional identity' clause as authorising Member States as a matter of EU Law to set aside EU Law on constitutional grounds under certain circumstances.     

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital – Parliamentary Intention and Damages Caused by Maladministration of a Contractual Dismissal Procedure

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58 [2012] 2 W.L.R. 55 the Supreme Court addressed the following question: is an employee, who can establish that (a) if a contractual disciplinary process had been correctly administered he would have been exonerated, and (b) thereafter employed until retirement, able to sue for loss of the earnings that he would have acquired until retirement? Three members of the Supreme Court held that such a remedy was not reconcilable with the enactment, originally in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, of a statutory unfair dismissals protection regime. It was Parliament's intention that an employee should not be able to outmanoeuvre the statute's compensation limitation rules by deploying a superior common law remedy. This note considers that reading of Parliament's intention.     

论夫妻一方婚前借款购置不动产的利益归属——对“《婚姻法》司法解释(三)征求意见稿”第11条的商榷

近年以来,离婚时夫妻一方婚前借款购置的不动产之归属争议越来越多,法学研究中对此类问题的认识分歧较大,各地人民法院对此类争议的裁判结果也不一致。根据"《婚姻法》司法解释(三)征求意见稿"第11条的规定,应考虑离婚时不动产的市场价格及共同清偿借款等因素,要求"不动产权利人对另一方进行合理补偿",具有相当大的合理性。但该规定可能存在重财产利益"清算"而轻人身关系特殊性的嫌疑,它可能因为对女性的弱势地位重视不足而不利于妇女。夫妻既是两个各自独立的利益主体,又是彼此紧密结合的共同生活伴侣。区分婚姻当事人双方的财产利益,不应当脱离婚姻的特殊性。处理这类不动产归属争议的司法裁判规则,宜根据不动产用途、财产来源、当事人对财产的贡献等因素,予以公平合理对待。