金融监管法的经济学分析

本文运用经济学的方法和原理对金融监管的立法必要性、金融监管法的价值目标设计和金融监管法的具体实施进行了充分的分析和论证,以期我国的金融监管法能够在稳定金融秩序的前提下提高监管效率,在提高监管效率和维护社会正义之间找到新的均衡,以达到金融监管法实施的帕累托最优。     

论金融监管法的原则

金融监管法的原则,是指对金融监管法的价值目标的根本体现,对金融监管法律关系的各个方面具有普遍的指导意义。而我国法学界尚未对金融监管法的原则形成统一的认识,深入的探讨亦不多。本文从金融监管法的价值目标以及确认金融监管法原则的方法论入手,讨论金融监管的原则,即依法监管原则、适度监管原则、公开、公正监管原则、高效监管原则、统一系统监管原则、激励相容监管原则和国际合作原则。     

论金融监管法的体系化建构

金融监管法的体系化建构对于保障金融监管的连贯性、一致性、条理性和稳定性至为关键。当下我国的金融监管法因体系化不足导致的立法碎片化现象客观存在，监管法实施中的波动现象时有发生。随着金融市场的发展，金融监管法数量急剧增加、制度规模不断扩大、规范内容日益庞杂的现实使得金融监管法的体系化建构尤为迫切。金融监管法应以金融安全原则、金融公平原则和金融效率原则为内容及序位来构建内在体系所要求的价值系统，以监管行为为“规定功能”的法概念，以预防行为、预警行为和处置行为为内容来构建外在体系所要求的规则系统。实践中，对金融监管法的融贯性和开放性的保障，对“原则—规则”模式的落实，是金融监管法体系化功能展开的具体内容。     

我国金融监管制度供给过剩的法经济学分析

中国金融监管存在显著的制度供给过剩。金融监管制度供给过剩会增加交易成本,不符合效率原则。从法经济学的角度分析,中国金融监管制度供给过剩的原因在于金融监管供给与需求不匹配、权力监管模式下监管机关的粗放型制度供给以及金融监管的行政化。改变金融监管制度供给过剩的状况,应当引入金融监管的成本收益理念和问责机制,将金融监管由权力监管向市场化监管转变,并合理处理金融创新与金融监管的关系。     

论我国金融监管法的基本原则

金融监管法的基本原则是我国金融法律的指导思想和基本准则.本文首先归纳了我国现有法律中明文确立的金融监管法的基本原则,然后从有利于促进我国金融发展的基本理论出发,论证了我国法律应当明文确立而尚未明文确立的金融监管法的基本原则,并且对其涵义进行了论述.最终得出结论,在法律中明确规定适度监管原则和监管主体独立性原则作为我国金融法律的基本原则将有助于我国金融业的长期良性发展.     

金融调控法与金融监管法关系论

根据法理学有关法律部门调整对象单一性的理论,金融法并不是一个独立的法律部门,而是由金融调控法、金融监管法以及金融交易法等三部分组成。但长期以来,经济法学研究忽略了这一点,尤其是在宏观调控法的研究上,即表现为随意把与金融调控法性质迥异的金融监管法或金融交易法划入宏观调控法体系。当然,如果说金融交易法与金融调控法的区别还是比较明显的话,金融监管法与金融调控法之间则确实存在着让人容易混淆的地方;为此,我们必须从调整对象、法律行为以及法律渊源三方面入手,对金融监管法与金融调控法的差异作出区分与比较,以求对金融法与宏观调控法的理论研究有所裨益。     

论我国金融监管法的基本原则

金融监管法的基本原则是金融监管主体在进行金融监管的过程中所应遵守的基本行为准则,它是金融监管法律的灵魂和价值所在。本文结合金融监管法的基本概念,提出我国金融监管法应遵循的六大基本原则,以促进我国金融监管的高效、有序、合法进行。     

当前我国教育法律价值目标——教育正义

本文指出对当前我国教育法律价值目标的探讨是教育法学领域里面的一个不可回避的问题,具有重要的理论和实践意义。本文从法理学的角度通过对法的价值目标的分析,对教育正义的研究,最后确立教育正义作为当前我国教育法律的价值目标。     

我国金融监管法的基本原则初探

金融监管法的基本原则是指金融监管法所确认并反映金融监管法本质和特征,其效力贯穿于金融监管法律规范之中,是金融监管主体在进行金融监管的过程中应遵守的基本准则,同时也是实现金融监管目标的基本要求和保证。文章将对金融监管法的七项基本原则做简单地介绍。     

《道路交通安全法》归责原则的经济分析 以汉德公式为视角

法经济学从经济的视角研究法律，以效率诠释正义，以法律引导效益。传统的法学理论，主要是规则分析，法律经济学则是运用经济学的研究方法．以经济分析方法为主要手段，以经济学的内容为前提．其中最为基本的分析方法就是对“交易成本”进行分析。成本一收益的比较是经济学考虑问题的基础，是人类的基本思维方式。对法律问题进行成本一收益的经济分析．有助于避免主观性判断，对于判断法律规则以及判决的合理性起着重要的作用，经济学对法律的分析，始终是以成本和效率作为分析问题的切入点和最终归宿，对侵权的经济分析也同样如此。     

善待能动司法——从法社会学和法经济学角度

能动司法与司法能动具有本质的差别,能动司法更加侧重司法的艺术性和对当下社会司法需求的回应。几千年的人治文化及中国现代都市与较落后的农村社会构成的二元社会,造成的公民整体法律意识提高的速度异常缓慢的现状以及不够完善的法律体系,迫切需要法院在解决纠纷方面付出极大的作为,而不是仅仅满足于坐堂审案。这为能动司法提供了存在的基础和发展的空间,并使能动司法具有一定的法社会学和法经济学意义。能动司法应以司法公正为核心,以法律规制为原则,以适度有序为方法论,以利益衡量为正当选择,以审判方法和审判作风为重点。同时法院当前的能动司法适宜以中西部和欠发达地区为主要区域,并围绕司法审判这一中心工作展开。能动司法的实践涵盖刑事、民商、行政三大审判和执行工作,并随国家和当地政策大局的变化而丰富其内涵。     

金融综合化经营生态环境的法律机制研究

金融综合化经营深刻改变着金融业的生态环境,亦由此滋生新的金融风险,使得金融生态的动态平衡系统失序。金融综合化经营和谐生态环境的基础与核心是法律机制的构建,以及构建后的法律对金融综合化经营生态环境的有效性及适应性。中国金融综合化经营和谐生态环境法治框架的构建,涵括具体金融法律制度的构建,金融法律制度变迁背后的路径依赖与约束条件,以及中国的正式金融法律、可选择的制度安排与非正式规则的兼容。     

Principle of Proportionality as Principle of Economic Efficiency

The principle of proportionality is at the cornerstone of EU law, and precisely of the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the law and economics literature, the general principles of law are commonly opposed to legal rules in terms of efficiency. On the one hand, the legal formalistic approach consists of apprehending the law as principled, whereby principles of law do not and should not encompass an efficiency rationale and should be self‐sufficient. On the other hand, the legal nihilism denying the existence or relevance of the general principles of law favours legal rules that are said to incorporate an efficiency rationale. I intend to analyse the efficiency rationale of probably the most important general principles of EU law—the proportionality principle. In this paper, I shall assert that not only does the EU proportionality principle encapsulate an efficiency rationale, but most importantly, it has been interpreted by the ECJ as such—hence, I propose the representation of the principle of proportionality as a principle of economic efficiency. After having introduced the principle of proportionality (1), I shall decipher the proportionality principle both from a law and economics perspective, and from a comparative perspective (2). Then, I shall delve into the jurisprudence of the ECJ so that the judicial reasoning of the Court as this reasoning proves the relevance of the proposed representation (3). Finally, I conclude in light of the findings of this paper (4).     

Free movement of law students and lawyers in the EU: a comparison of English,German and Greek legislation

This article focuses on the linked themes of mobility within the European Union for law students and for lawyers. It highlights obstacles to cross-border legal education and legal practice across three Member States: England and Wales, Germany, and Greece. The European legal framework is outlined. The implications of recent case law of the European Court of Justice, on the conditions of access to higher education and financial support, are considered. Three main areas of concern are identified: admission arrangements; student finance; and the professional recognition of qualifications. The article compares the approach of the three Member States in each of these areas and explores conflicts between their domestic law provisions and European Union law. The article concludes by identifying ways in which ‘Europeanisation’ of legal education and the legal profession could be encouraged by facilitating law student mobility and by modernising the law curriculum.     

反垄断法价值理论的重构——以竞争价值为视角

我国法学界以经济学上的有效竞争理论诠释反垄断法上竞争的含义,视竞争为圭臬,将竞争作为反垄断法特有的法律价值和传递其他价值的手段的观点有失偏颇。竞争价值对反垄断法所要调整的经济现象并不具有完全的解释力。竞争理论、交易费用经济学以及管制经济学都应当成为影响反垄断制度供给的理性认识;因此,有必要对反垄断法价值理论进行重构。     

Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?

The number of international law obligations that have binding force on the Union and/or its Member States is sharply increasing. This paper argues that in this light the well‐functioning of the European Union ultimately depends on the protection of the principle of supremacy from law originating outside of the EU legal order. The supremacy of EU law is essential to ensuring that Member States cannot use national rules to justify derogation from EU law. As a matter of principle, international treaties concluded by the Member States rank at the level of ordinary national law within the European legal order and below all forms of European law (both primary and secondary). Article 351 TFEU exceptionally allows Member States to derogate from primary EU law in order to comply with obligations under anterior international agreements. It does not however allow a departure from the principle of supremacy that underlies the European legal order. In Kadi I, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that Article 351 TFEU, while it permits derogation from primary law, may under no circumstances permit circumvention of the “very foundations” of the EU legal order. This introduces an additional condition that all acts within the sphere of EU law need to comply with a form of “super‐supreme law”. It also strengthened the principle of supremacy and gave the Court of Justice the role of the guardian of the Union's “foundations”. The Court of Justice acted on the necessity of defending the Union as a distinct legal order, retaining the autonomous interpretation of its own law, and ultimately ensuring that the Union can act as an independent actor on the international plane.     

提高金融包容:一个银行法的视角

通过提高金融包容促进人类发展已成为国际社会的共识.未来金融法改革,无论是立法还是监管实践应充分考虑金融包容.从银行法改革来看,提高金融包容应与维护银行体系稳定和保护存款人利益共同作为监管机构的监管目标.作为法定的权利,公众获得生命线性的银行服务,可以通过银行社会责任的法定化来实现,并通过私法和公法强制实施.从激励相容和成本效益监管原则出发,对提供小额信贷的金融机构必须实施差异化监管.     

互联网金融刑法规制扩大化的反思与限缩

互联网金融在规范与事实维度均存在刑法规制扩大化倾向。究其缘由,传统刑法规制模式存在秩序法益宽泛化、刑法规范抽象化、刑事治理优先化的弊端。该模式不仅会造成刑法自身机能的紊乱,而且无益于互联网金融的健康发展。当前,在"大力发展民营经济"和"鼓励金融创新"的时代背景下,应合理限缩刑法介入互联网金融的范围,并以金融秩序与自由并重扩充秩序法益内容,以监管科技与刑事规制联动彰显刑法独立品格,以非刑措施与刑事手段并用构建多元制裁体系,进而实现互联网金融刑法规制模式的优化转型。