侵权法归责原则的论争及其解析

侵权法归责是在某种事故损害出现之后,出于对无辜受害者不公正待遇的同情,从与事故损害有关联的当事人中间选择最为合适的责任承担者的一种努力.公平原则理应属于侵权法归责原则之一,当行为人的过错与责任比较而言显失公平时,需要公平原则予以矫正.侵权法对各归责原则的选择基于一系列与风险和损害相关联的参数,包括行为本身的社会价值、风险的可控程度、行为风险与利益的分布格局、事故造成的受益和损害分布格局和致害人过错与受害人损害的对比关系等.我国民法中的各项特殊侵权行为应依照上述参数重新确定其归责原则,对于本身既具有重要的社会价值又具有难以有效控制风险的行为,只有将收益者对受害者的赔偿看成是实施该行为的一个合法的前提才符合正义的要求.     

《环境污染强制责任保险管理办法(草案)》除外责任之探讨

除外责任具体内容的设计应考虑公益和私益的平衡,确保其在及时、有效分散与移转风险,削减社会管理成本的同时兼顾承保人、投保人、受害人三方的私益.《环境污染强制责任保险管理办法(草案)》中将"不可抗拒的自然灾害""环境污染犯罪"的除外责任限定于"致使第三者遭受的损害"不妥,保险公司不应为生态环境损害承担保险责任;将"环境污染...     

Victim and Society: Sharing Wrongs, but in Which Roles?

This paper discusses what kinds of conflicts arise when a crime has been committed, and with whom—and in which of their possible roles—the offender should be seen as having such conflicts. The possible roles of the victim are in focus, as is the constitutive role of the act of criminalizing a certain kind of behavior. It is argued that while in the tort conflict the victim should be seen as a party qua him- or herself in a ‘fuller’ sense (and with full freedom on how to handle the conflict, including dropping it), in the criminal law conflict it is community, the ‘we’, that should be looked upon as the party to the conflict with the offender. The victim should not be seen as excluded from the criminal law conflict, though: to the contrary, he or she is a member of community and has an important role to play. This role, however, needs to be strictly defined in a way that gives the victim the function of a certain kind of representative for ‘us’, the community. This role should not allow the victim much room to influence how the criminal law conflict is handled. The model I am suggesting presupposes—I think, at least—that criminal law conflict and tort conflict should be handled together at the same trial.     

Victim Compensation and Offender Restitution in the Federal Republic of Germany—a Western-European Comparative Perspective

In the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as in most other Western European countries, the growing emphasis in victimology during the last 15 years has led to several legal schemes for victim compensation. The German Victim Compensation Act of 1976 provides compensation for violent acts within the framework of a social security system with periodic payments, while most of the other West-European countries grant lump sums from a special compensation fund. The German legislation, however, has given the victim a relatively weak position. The problems are aggravated because of the restrictive, and concerning the Federal states—different, application of the law. Victim compensation as a restitutional sanction within the penal law doesn't play an important role. Furthermore, the financial situation of most offenders is so bad, that the civil claims of the victim for damages cannot be compensated. In Germany, however, remarkable efforts are made by the debt relief programs for offenders, which allow victim compensation on the one hand and offender rehabilitation on the other. This balancing of victim-offender interests seems very important for criminal policy in general. An extension of the legal provisions for victim compensation is considered necessary as is the wider application of restitutional sanctions whether instead of or combined with penal sanctions. Furthermore, help for victims should include social and psychological assistance programs, which are not yet developed in Europe to any great extent.     

对纯粹经济损失赔付规则的探析

纯粹经济损失是当今民法研习中的难点问题，由于表现形态各异，至今没有准确统一的概念。它同时涉及侵权法和合同法两大领域，导致很难获得赔付。然而这些不予赔付的理由并不充分，应该结合中国当前立法，采取适当的控制机制，在一定范围内承认纯粹经济损失的赔付问题。     

Compensation of Uncertain Lost Earnings

The present value of expected lost earnings is in the Law and Economics literature normally regarded as the amount that makes a victim fully compensated at income losses. However, the present value measure disregards risk-aversion. In the framework of the von-Neumann-Morgenstern utility theory the risk-averse victim will be made whole by a compensation smaller than the present value of the stream of uncertain lost earnings. A rule for determining an immediate certainty equivalent for lost potential earnings when the victim is risk-averse is suggested. The equivalent depends not only on the degree of risk-aversion, but also on the correlation between future losses. The legal practice varies, but in many jurisdictions judges tend to pay less than the present value for uncertain lost earnings, which is in accordance with our results.     

国家赔偿中精神损害抚慰金的适用问题——以《国家赔偿法》第35条后半段为分析对象

精神损害抚慰金的适用原则应当是赔偿法定、适当限制、平等对待以及区分类型,认定"造成严重后果"应根据生命权、健康权、身体权、人身自由权、名誉权等权利具体分析认定。在操作程序上,确定抚慰金数额可分为五个步骤。在适用对象方面,认定精神痛苦应以理性第三人标准与具体当事人标准有机统一,我国目前还不宜将精神损害赔偿的请求权人扩展到特定第三人,无感受能力之人的赔偿数额应低于正常受害人。     

我国刑事被害人社会补偿制度之构建

以犯罪人为中心的刑事政策使被害人权利遭到严重忽视,尤其在经济上难以获得充分赔偿,易于导致被害人的"二次伤害"。建立刑事被害人社会补偿制度,将刑事被害人的权利保护纳入社会保障法体系范畴已被世界多国选择。我国应引入社会补偿制度,重新审视国家与社会、救助与补偿之间内涵与区别,明晰刑事被害人社会补偿制度的性质,构建补偿对象清晰、补偿条件明确、资金来源充裕、管理机构权威的刑事被害人社会补偿制度,以实现我国刑事被害人权利的充分保障。     

权利外观与诈骗罪认定

行为人利用虚假的权利外观实施表见行为,第三人对外观产生合理信赖,向行为人给付对价并取得相应财产,根据权利外观理论,民法对第三人财产予以保护,不利后果转由真实权利人承担。但是,刑法的价值取向、司法解释的相关规定以及法律关系强行转换导致的处罚漏洞,阻断了将该理论适用于犯罪认定的现实可能。在规范层面将财产损害分为损害发生与损害分配,刑民对损害发生的认定相互契合,均将第三人作为表见行为的直接被害人;与此同时,刑法对损害分配不作评价,在法律事实的相对性层面,刑民又各自分立。第三人是遭受财产损失的刑事被害人,在善意取得、表见代理的案件中,行为人通过隐瞒自己并非真实权利人的事实,致使第三人陷入认识错误交付财物,成立诈骗罪。     

论惩罚性死亡赔偿金制度之构建——兼谈死者近亲属缺位情形下的死亡赔偿

在我国侵权法上,死亡赔偿制度系以赔偿死者近亲属的损害为核心,而对受害人生命的丧失则未提供任何救济措施。这不仅使死亡赔偿金的性质难以界定,同时也无法解决死者近亲属缺位情形下的死亡赔偿问题。我国应当把"生命的丧失"本身纳入侵权法的救济范围,加害人应对此承担惩罚性死亡赔偿金的责任。     

纯粹经济损失赔偿规则:理论、实践及立法选择

纯粹经济损失是指非因侵害受害人的人身、财产或者绝对权利等而产生的经济损失,具有间接性、经济性等特征。对纯粹经济损失应采取"不赔偿为原则,赔偿为例外"的规则。我国民法通则和一些司法解释已经涵盖了对部分纯粹经济损失的赔偿规则,未来的侵权责任法应当遵循既有传统,同时对第三人侵害债权及虚假陈述造成的纯粹经济损失之赔偿规则作出规定。     

死亡补偿费研究——尝试一种非主流观点

死亡补偿费的性质不仅关系死亡的民事救济,还涉及生命权的有无以及宪政和刑法理论对于生命的关注.现行法将死亡补偿费定性为对财产损失的赔偿,客观上把人看作获取收益的工具,有悖生命伦理.死亡补偿费应该是对生命损害的补偿,死亡赔偿项目除包括死者生前的健康和财产损失,现行法规定的其余赔偿项目都应以死亡补偿费概括.死亡补偿额以35岁为基数,赔偿可支配收入35年,每增加或者减少一岁,减少一年,最低赔偿不低于10年,对二亲等亲属的赔偿数额酌减.     

《合同法》应当明确规定第三人利益合同

第三人利益合同在大陆法系和英美法系曾经表现出不同的发展轨迹。但在现代,两大法系都承认第三人利益合同存在的合理性。我国《合同法》中不存在关于第三人利益合同的一般规定。从贯彻意思自治原则,满足社会生活的实际需要出发,应当在《合同法》中明确规定第三人利益合同。     

论机动车交通事故责任强制保险的法律适用

机动车交通事故责任强制保险是以保护和救助生命为核心的制度,它与机动车第三者责任保险在法律依据、法律性质、责任划分、保险费率等诸多方面存在不同,在法律适用中不可混淆;若两者并存时,机动车交通事故责任强制保险优先适用,机动车第三者责任保险补充适用,以有效分散风险,同时,也为交通事故受害人设置了双重保护,更加有利于保证交通事故受害人得到及时救助;在诉讼中,机动车第三者责任强制保险的受害人可以以保险公司为被告,直接向其求偿;而机动车第三者责任险的受害人只能把保险公司列为无独立请求权的第三人。     

高楼抛掷物致害的法律规制——以《侵权责任法》第87条的经济分析为中心

高楼抛掷物致害作为一种特殊侵权行为,《侵权责任法》第87条对致害人不明情况下的责任承担进行了规定。该条规定具有保证受害人得到补偿等好处,却无法实现侵权责任法应有的预防功能。研究表明,利用惩罚性赔偿能够有效解决对受害人的补偿问题和对致害人的预防问题。     

Rethinking The Ends of Harm

In The Ends of Harm, Victor Tadros claims that the general justifying aim of the criminal law should be general deterrence. He also takes seriously that we cannot use people as a means, and thus he argues that we may only punish people in the name of general deterrence who have a ‘duty’ to suffer. Tadros claims that this duty arises as follows: An offender initially has a duty not to harm the victim. If the offender violates that duty, the offender still has a duty to stop the harm from occurring (so that, for example, an offender would have to jump in front of his own bullet). And if the harm does occur, then the offender has a duty to rectify that harm. This duty to rectify, argues Tadros, requires the defendant not only to compensate the victim but also to protect the victim to the extent that he would have been able to have been harmed to prevent the threat from occurring. Tadros further advances intricate arguments for why the state may therefore punish the offender to protect other potential victims to the extent of the offender’s duty to rectify. This symposium contribution seeks to explore three problems with Tadros’ analysis, ultimately arguing that Tadros’ theory fails on its own terms. First, attempts present a substantial problem for Tadros’ regime because attempts do not give rise to duties to prevent harm because there is no harm to be prevented. Tadros’ attempt to account for attempts, as completed offenses of diversions of security resources, ultimately leads to punishments that bear little resemblance to the crime attempted. Such a wildly counterintuitive result creates problems for a regime premised on general deterrence, which must be understood and respected. Second, Tadros’ regime will often exempt the rich from suffering criminal punishment. Tadros claims that duties to prevent harms from occurring (by jumping in front of bullets) are only enforceable when compensation will be inadequate. However, affluent offenders may be able to fully compensate. Moreover, since the scope of the duty to suffer will be determined by what remains of the duty after the victim is compensated, affluent offenders will be able to compensate more and thereby suffer less. Again, the actual sentences will thereby bear little resemblance to the rationale for criminalization, thus threatening the deterrent message of the law. Moreover, a system that exacerbates distributive inequalities will not achieve public respect. Third, Tadros cannot justify taking the duty that the defendant owes to the victim and forcing the victim to transfer this asset to the state. In his quest to articulate a theory that does not impermissibly use defendants, he ultimately endorses a theory that impermissibly uses their victims. He thus fails to achieve the very goal he sets for himself, which is to achieve general deterrence without impermissibly using anyone.     

论诈骗罪中的财产损失

诈骗罪是财产犯罪,倘若欺骗行为不能造成他人财产损失,便不成立诈骗罪;如若欺骗行为具有造成财产损失的危险性,但没有造成现实的财产损失,则成立诈骗未遂(中止)。对于“财产”损失的认定,宜采取以经济的财产说为基础的折中说;受骗者(被害人)基于不法原因给付财物的,存在财产损失;欺骗他人使之免除非法债务的,以及使用欺骗方法取得对方不法占有的自己所有的财产或者实现合法债权的,不存在财产损失。对于财产“损失”的认定,应采取实质的个别财产说;行为人在骗取财产的同时提供相当对价的,应认定为造成了财产损失;行为人就交付财产的用途、财产的接受者进行欺骗因而取得财产的,视受骗者是否存在法益关系的错误认定判断是否存在财产损失。     

没收违法所得的合宪性分析——基于德国刑法上特别没收合宪性改革的启示

没收违法所得是不是行政处罚或刑罚,并不取决于采取总额原则还是净利原则,还需要从其目的上进行判断。财产权属于法律上形成的基本权利,立法机关在确定财产权的保护范围时享有形成自由。违法所得不属于宪法上私有财产权的保护范围,由此也否定了没收违法所得的制裁属性。无论刑法上还是行政法上的没收违法所得更多的是一种矫正不公平财产秩序的措施,与民法上不当得利返还的理由类似。当然,立法在规定没收第三人的获利以及没收前是否对受害人进行退赔时,涉及到对第三人和受害人的私有财产权的限制,应当进行合宪性分析,避免对其私有财产权构成侵犯。     

论因第三人欺诈或胁迫而订立合同的效力

当事人一方因受第三人的欺诈或胁迫,与相对人所订立合同的效力,集中地表现为该方当事人、相对人以及第三人之间利益冲突。这里的"第三人"并非当事人一方与相对人以外的任何人,而是受到特定的限制。对于一方当事人受第三人欺诈或胁迫而订立合同的效力,应该采纳《荷兰民法典》所代表的效力模式,以相对人知道或应当知道合同一方当事人受第三人欺诈或胁迫的事实,作为合同一方当事人撤销该合同的条件。如果遭受欺诈或胁迫的一方当事人受有损失的,可以要求第三人承担侵权责任,赔偿其全部损失。