女性在非婚同居中损害的法律救济

女性在日益普遍的非婚同居中受到损害的事实较为普遍,但侵权法在解决同居损害问题上存在很大的局限;而在现有的婚姻家庭法框架下,又缺乏规范非婚同居的相关制度,导致女性在非婚同居中受到的人身和财产方面的损害难以得到法律的救济.因此,应该在婚姻家庭法体系中建立和完善相关的制度,对非婚同居中女性的权益予以保护.     

论非婚同居关系解除时的财产问题

非婚同居是在法律婚姻关系之外的一种同居关系,而且其在全世界具有与日俱增的趋势,这是我们社会现实中一个不可否认的事实。非婚同居带给我们的究竟是一种全新的生活方式,还是对传统婚姻制度的背离,这已不再是问题的焦点,因为非婚同居群体快速增长的发展趋势已是显而易见。非婚同居关系的不稳定性以及法律对其的规制缺失,导致非婚同居关系解除时产生的众多财产纠纷和社会矛盾,才是法律应当考虑的当务之急。     

非婚同居“合法化”的理性思考

非婚同居作为一种男女结合和家庭生活方式日益为大多数人接受、理解和宽容,并对传统婚姻和家庭产生巨大的冲击。而我国法律没有赋予同居者以法律地位,也未对这种既成事实的男女结合和家庭模式予以规制。国家对未婚同居进行科学的制度构建,调整公民之间的非婚同居关系,赋予非婚同居者一定的权利和义务,才能解决由于非婚同居发生的纠纷,保护民事主体的合法权益。     

建立我国非婚同居的法律制度

近年来,传统的婚姻家庭思想观念正受到越来越大的挑战,非婚同居现象的增多是其主要表现之一,但这一现象在我国却没有得到很好的法律规制,由此引发了许多纠纷。本文认为应当从维护合法婚姻的权威和保护相关当事人正当权益出发,理性分析并界定非婚同居的法律地位,参照和借鉴国外的有关立法经验,构建符合我国国情的非婚同居法律制度,以实现法律的调控作用。     

非婚同居关系法律问题研究

随着非婚同居现象的增多，我国学术界和实务界对非婚同居关系的态度也逐渐由限制转向调整规制。但是我国婚姻家庭法对非婚同居法律关系的规定较为粗略，不利于对非婚同居关系规制。本文从非婚同居关系的定义，规制的必要性入手，比较其他国家对非婚同居关系的规定，对我国的非婚同居关系的法律规定提出了相关建议。     

浅论非婚同居财产纠纷法律问题

财产关系在非婚同居法律调整中居于核心地位。国外对非婚同居财产所有权归属分为独立财产主义和共同则产主义两种理论,我国对非婚同居的财产规制采取以协议财产制为主、辅以共同财产主义的形式。目前我国有关非婚同居财产纠纷的立法具有明显的滞后性和局限性。本文指出构建我国非婚同居财产纠纷法律制度应从非婚同居财产关系的内部法律效力和外部法律效力两个方面对我国非婚同居财产纠纷问题进行立法规制。     

非婚同居的法律思考

非婚同居在现实生活中普遍的存在与发展,具有它存在的必然性和合理性。非婚同居在法律的空隙中游走,是人们意思自治与契约自由的产物,这本应是人们自由处分权利的结果。但是由于法律规定的不健全,导致现实生活中出现了许多问题亟待解决,本文对如何解决这些问题进行了法律思考。     

浅析非婚同居财产纠纷问题

非婚同居关系已成为当今社会一种越来越普遍的现象,然而我国由于种种原因,例如传统的婚姻观念等,并没有系统的法律对非婚同居现象做出明确的规定。而在实践中非婚同居期间的财产纠纷已经成为一项社会问题,亟待解决。本文从非婚同居概念的界定入手,对比分析了主要国家的非婚同居财产问题立法,回顾了我国该问题的立法现状,提出了对非婚同居财产纠纷的立法建议。     

非婚同居现象的法律思考

社会发展到今天,没有结婚的异性同居已经不是什么新鲜事了。而反观我国婚姻法对非婚同居现象却没有有效规制,这一方面使得非婚同居者的合法权益得不到有效保护;另一方面致使个人私下暴力解决非婚同居纠纷的案件增多,影响家庭和睦和社会和谐。基于此,笔者认为应对非婚同居进行法律规制。本文在界定非婚同居的基础上,分析了非婚同居的性质、法律规制的必要性,并提出了相应的建议。     

浅析非婚同居的法律规制

随着经济的发展,世界文化的交融,思想观念的解放,人口的频繁流动,家庭模式也逐渐向多元化的方向发展,婚姻不再是组成家庭的唯一途径.非婚同居,这一主张自由、突破传统道德禁锢的新型家庭模式正悄然的在中国崛起.但我国在这方面的立法基本上属于空白状态,大批非婚同居者徘徊于法律的门外,.其权利的不到必要的保障,由此产生的社会问题也得不到有效解决.因此,非婚同居立法在我国就显得十分必要.     

Cohabitation and Comparative Method

The paper intervenes in current policy debates on unmarried cohabitation and comparative law debates on methodology. It adopts a culturally alert, discursive methodology of comparison to study regulation of unmarried cohabitation under the common law and civil law as well as the effect of an entrenched right to equality protecting against marital status discrimination. It identifies not different legislative solutions to a common problem, but distinct discourses of family law regulation. Yet the approaches are less radically opposed than is often thought. Discursive comparison tends to highlight dominant voices at the expense of minority ones, wrongly characterising minority views as foreign to a tradition. Discursive comparison should not confine itself to a synchronic view of present legal debates; a richer diachronic approach will also attend to views within a legal tradition's past.     

The Legal Position of the Married and Unmarried Father Under English and Dutch Law: Sharing Parenting or Just Going Dutch?

This article addresses the issue of the legal position of the married and unmarried father under English and Dutch law. The legal position under English Law in the UK for the married and unmarried father may be familiar to English family lawyers. The situation for unmarried fathers can be seen as more 'precarious' and less legally secure than that of the married father in terms of the legal recognition of fatherhood and the exercise of parental responsibility. Fathers who are not married to the mothers of their children are not recognised as 'fathers' in law in the same way as the married father. They will possess the automatic parental responsibility that the married father has, as a result of the implementation of new legislation which acts as a 'gateway' to the effective exercise, in legal terms, of 'fathering' activities. Whilst there have been some reforms, this are set in the context of problems and difficulties in regulating unmarried relationships in general. There is disparity in legal treatment between the married and the unmarried relationship, fatherhood in particular, but this distinction shows signs of diminishing, as it has done under Dutch law. In The Netherlands, as in a lot of other European countries, family law has been subject to continual law reforms, as a consequence of social developments. Also decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have forced the Dutch government to adapt legislation. Due to the equality principle, many benefits of marriage are now also granted to unmarried people. Since the extended law reform in 1998 the terms 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' child – for children born inside and outside of marriage – no longer exist. Instead the term 'family ties' was introduced. This article will discuss the major issues which concern the legal position of the married and the unmarried father under English and Dutch law.     

Ignorance in Bliss: Modeling Knowledge of Rights in Marriage and Cohabitation

We live our lives against an extensive backdrop of legal rights and responsibilities, yet a growing number of studies indicates low levels of public legal literacy. In the context of opposite‐sex cohabitation and marriage law, this study employs new survey data from the United Kingdom to explore, in detail, how many and which people are ignorant of the law, and what are the nature and origins of erroneous beliefs. We find that people's beliefs about both cohabitation and marriage law are frequently wrong. They are also strikingly similar, and reflect the divergence of social attitudes from the law. Our findings are consistent with the notion that legal literacy links to salience of issue. They are also consistent with recent public legal education initiatives that affected public understanding of cohabitation law, but we argue that social attitudes and the intransigence of erroneous beliefs generally present significant challenges to such initiatives.     

Legal Treatment of Cohabitation in the United States*

This article discusses the variety of ways state legal systems in the United States treat cohabitation, both by same-sex and heterosexual couples. The different approaches are described along a spectrum that ranges from one extreme, under which cohabitants have essentially no rights against one another or against third parties, to the other extreme, under which cohabitants are to be treated as though they were married under state law. Different areas of law are discussed, including the rights of cohabitants both against one another (remedies upon dissolution, inheritance) and against third parties, such as state benefits, tort claims, health-related benefits, and rights concerning children. The article concludes with speculations concerning why the remedies offered to cohabitants in the United States are so limited, as compared with other countries.     

Comparative Family Law and the Political Process: Regulation of Sexual Morality in Finland

This article demonstrates a basis for comparative analysis of family laws. It illustrates the extent to which political constraints influence the development of legal policy and reception of foreign models. The article takes the form of a case study and examines Finnish law relating to unmarried parenthood, informal cohabitation, and same-sex partnerships. Comparisons are drawn with Swedish law. Finland and Sweden have maintained a remarkably close association. Similarities and points of departure in the reform process and detail of legislation in these two jurisdictions point up the institutional dimensions of family law.     

国际人权法在中国人权法制建设中的地位和作用

国际人权法在我国人权法制建设中具有十分重要的地位和作用。相关实际部门和学术界对此尚缺乏客观、准确、充分和一致的认识。这既不利于我国对国际人权法规则的进一步接受和适用,也不利于我国人权法制的健全和完善。应从国际人权法的自身情况出发,以国际法基本原则为基础,以“尊重和保障人权”的宪法精神和原则为指导,并以有利于我国人权法制建设和人权状况的改善为目标,对国际人权法在我国人权法制建设中的地位和作用加以重新认识,并在此基础上采取一切适当而必要的步骤和措施,健全和完善人权法制,并促进人权状况的进一步改善。     

Unmarried Cohabitation and Parenthood in Britain and Europe

This paper focuses on cohabitation and unmarried parenthood across a range of European nations. It includes a brief outline of the history of cohabitation, reviews recent trends in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood, compares the stability of marital and cohabiting unions, examines the extent to which cohabiting couples are regarded as families, and the final sections include a review of the policy responses to date, as well as a discussion of the impetuses that may lie behind the rise in cohabitation and unmarried parenthood.     

Involuntary detention and treatment of the mentally ill: China's 2012 Mental Health Law

The long-awaited Mental Health Law of China was passed on 26 October 2012 and took effect on 1 May 2013. Being the first national legislation on mental health, it establishes a basic legal framework to regulate mental health practice and recognizes the fundamental rights of persons with mental disorders. This article focuses on the system of involuntary detention and treatment of the mentally ill under the new law, which is expected to prevent the so-called “Being misidentified as mentally disordered” cases in China. A systematic examination of the new system demonstrates that the Mental Health Law of China implicitly holds two problematic assumptions and does not provide adequate protection of the fundamental rights of the involuntary patients. Administrative enactments and further national legislative efforts are needed to remedy these flaws in the new law.     

Regulating Marriage and Cohabitation in 21st Century Britain

This article assesses the legal regulation of marriage and cohabitation in Britain and outlines a growing need and desire for the currently confused law to be amended despite what has been termed 'the normal chaos of family law'. It adds to the topical debate about 'couple regulation' and argues that law should protect the function rather than the form of relationships. This argument is supported by recent Nuffield Foundation funded research, which draws on a major attitudinal survey of over 3000 respondents' views about marriage, cohabitation and the law and a number of in-depth interviews with current and former cohabitants. This research supports the view that cohabitation is now an accepted parenting and partnering structure across Britain, and that this ought to be reflected in a 'reflexive' approach to legal regulation in this sphere.     

从村民自治领域的权利救济看统一公法学知识生产的必要性——从村民自治领域的两个典型案例切入

村民自治是中国本土政治法律实践的重要成果,但该领域大量的权利救济却很难进入国家正式的司法程序之中。“有权利无救济”的根源在于部门公法学知识生产的分散性,这导致对村民自治权的法律性质的判断以及村民自治内外权利救济缺乏有效的理论和制度供给。“统一公法学”提供了一种整体化的知识生产模式,针对村民自治领域的权利救济需求发展出“社会公权力”理论和“统一公法诉讼”理论。这种整体化的知识生产明显优越于原来的分散化的知识生产,对于最大化提供公法领域权利救济机制,并表达中国自身公法文明具有积极的理论和制度意义。