我国设立归扣制度的基础与制度构建研究

归扣制度具有保障共同继承人公平地分配遗产的功能。设立归扣制度，符合我国当代民众财产日益丰富的现实国情，能够彰显法律的平等、自由、公平和效率价值。为此，可借鉴相关国外立法，结合我国实际提出设立我国归扣制度的立法建议。     

遗产分割中归扣法律制度研究

遗产分割中的归扣制度,是继承开始前继承人从被继承人处所受让之特种赠与,应从其应继份中予以扣除之制度。归扣制度为大多数国家尤其是大陆法系国家继承立法所明文规定。我国现行继承法无此制度,但民间历来有此习俗,应予承认。由学者起草的两个民法典草案虽对归扣制度设有明文,但均未规定扣还。     

论归扣制度在我国确立的必要性与可行性

归扣制度是指在遗产分割中将继承人已经从被继承人处所得的部分财产予以扣除,归入其应继份额之中的一种继承法律制度。近现代世界上绝大多数国家和地区在立法上确认了归扣制度,在我国能否可行,目前还存在很大争议。从归扣制度的渊源、必要性、可行性三个方面进行分析,认为我国应当将归扣制度立法法,并提出相关立法建议。     

归扣制度及其在我国确立的必要性探究

遗产分割中的归扣制度,是为了实现共同继承人间的继承公平而设计的,归扣制度为大多数国家继承立法所规定。我国也应在继承法中建立该制度,但只应采德国模式,即在小范围内实行归扣。同时学界对确立该制度的必要性认识欠充分,本文从归扣制度的确立,有利于充分体现继承权平等原则,协调了习俗与法律的冲突,有利于法律权威的树立等四个方面进行了必要性论证。     

遗产分割中的归扣制度

被继承人死亡时，继承关系发生。此时，除确定继承关系的主体——应继的继承人外，确定继承关系的客体——应继财产的范围也成为一大重点，尤其是被继承人死亡前与继承人之间所为的物的赠与，于继承时该如何分配，实为一大问题。对于这一问题的解决，大多数国家都规定了归扣制度。所谓“归扣”，又称为“如除”、“合算”、“冲算”、“扣减”，是指被继承人对于继承人为其应继份额之预付，为赠予或遗赠，于算定其现实之应继份时，应予以加算或扣除之制度。而我国现行《继承法》对此没有规定。有学者认为这是我国《继承法》的漏洞，应该加以补充。本文拟对归扣制度作初步研究，并结合国外的立法例，提出构建我国遗产归扣制度的具体设想。     

被执行主体变更与追加的类型和程序

被执行主体变更的类型第一，作为被申请执行人的公民死亡，其财产权概括移转给遗产继承人，应将被执行主体变更为遗产继承人。根据继承法中对遗产的划分，总体包括被继承人遗留的积极遗产与消极遗产。①积极遗产是指被继承人遗留的个人财产和财产权利，②它给继承人带来了财产利益，故称为积极遗产。消极遗产是指被继承人遗留的个人债务，由于它不仅不能给继承人带来财产利益，还会使继承人的财产利益受到减损，所以称为消极遗产。按照继承法的基本原理，继承人不能只继承积极遗产而拒绝消极遗产，必须概括继承，除非放弃继承权而不继承。也…     

债权人与继承人利益的协调与平衡

我国《继承法》偏重于保护继承人的利益,忽视了对于遗产债权人利益的保护。建议在编纂民法典时,坚持继承人利益与债权人利益并重和同等保护的理念,明确规定先清偿债务后分割遗产原则,建立相应的遗产管理制度、遗产清册制度和遗产债权公告制度,采取有条件的限定继承制度,规定共同继承人对于遗产债务的连带责任。     

生前特别赠与及遗产合算制度之构造——以民法典继承编为分析视角

以实现财产代际传递为目的的生前特别赠与是普遍存在的民事行为,但包括民法典在内的现行立法却并未建立相关规则,立法的缺位导致财产传递的稳定性可能受到影响.将生前特别赠与视为继承份额的预付,继承开始后将其合算入遗产,再由继承人平均继承的遗产合算制度,被用于解决生前特别赠与问题.历史基础和比较法研究可以为构建遗产合算制度提供参照.在遗产合算制度的构建中,特别赠与范围的确定标准、赠与价值的评估机制,以及代位继承和间接赠与情况下的归扣义务人等都是不可或缺的核心内容.     

遗产继承中债权人利益保护问题探究

我国现行《继承法》侧重保护继承人的利益,而忽略了对遗产债权人利益的保护。在制度内容上存在着遗产债务范围过于狭窄,接受和放弃继承的期限不明确,对债权人利益保护和权利救济的具体制度缺失等明显缺陷。为此,当以《继承法》修订为历史契机,抓紧建立有条件的有限责任继承制度,进一步明确遗产和遗产债务的范围,完善遗产管理制度,增设对债权人利益保护和权利救济的具体制度等,以协调与平衡遗产继承中继承人与债权人之间的利益关系。     

中国民法典继承编之遗产清单制度系统化构建研究

我国《继承法》实行无条件的限定责任继承,没有把依法制作遗产清单作为实行限定责任继承的首要前提条件,这有可能导致侵害遗产债权人的利益,也有可能损害其他继承人的利益。通过考察遗产清单制度的起源与功能,分析我国立法的现状与不足,在比较评析国外遗产清单制度立法内容的基础上,结合我国实际,借鉴域外立法经验和汲取我国学者的有益观点,提出我国《民法典继承编》之遗产清单制度的立法构想。     

“卡迪”模式与刑事公正司法的实现

从“有法必依”到“公正司法”喻示着一种刑事司法观的应然转变:放松了司法者对法律文本本身严格服从的要求,更加强调文本之外的个案公正、合情理等实质合理性依据。这对破解当下具有普遍性的法条主义裁判思维,无疑是一种很好的政策支持和启发。按照罪刑法定原则本意进行合乎逻辑的推演,绝不能推导出“法有明文规定即可定罪处罚”的结论。韦伯关于中国古代司法系“卡迪”模式(即“非理性”)的论断具有一定的事实依据及合理性,这种卡迪模式对实质公正的追求具有目的正当性,不宜将此简单视为“恣意司法”的代名词,其中体现的能动性判断具有司法出罪维度的意义。在目前刑法体系下,法的公正价值与法的安定性并不存在冲突,出罪的理论依据与规范依据完全可以得到恰当融合,但在法适用中需要缓和法的命令性要求。恰当的说理论证是嫁接法的安定性与个案公正的纽带,该过程实际上是将合情理、合目的等价值考量揉入刑法文本的理解、适用及说理论证过程当中。     

拉伦茨裁判方法之系统分析

拉伦茨方法论体系的基础是欧洲传统的“名判”逻辑技术,其目标是达到个案的公平判决。当作为裁判依据的总体法与条法不足时,法官可“续造法”。所续造的“法”不是条法,而仅是为达到公判而对诸条法的自主运用,它应该有“现行法”的拘束力。为使体系内自主运用条法成为可能,本来不足的体系内“条法库”由审判员以诸种技术补足。介于法律准则之间的或宪法内条法的不谐则依赖“法益衡量”技术解决。因片面突出法官的自主地位,拉伦茨方法论在本质上是现代法治社会一种尚需调制的折衷系统。     

Preserving the Copyright Balance: Statutory and Constitutional Preemption of Contract-Based Claims

Some copyright owners in the digital age have turned from copyright to contract law to protect their intellectual property, employing licensing agreements that override fair use and other public interest safeguards. State laws or common law claims that conflict with general copyright policy may be preempted through application of Section 301 of the Copyright Act or through general Supremacy Clause preemption. This article examines the role of preemption in protecting the public interest against attempts to circumvent the copyright law through such means. After examining the relationship between copyright and contract law, the article reviews the case law regarding statutory preemption and Supremacy Clause preemption of contract-based claims. It concludes that application of Section 301 preemption is not sufficient to protect longstanding principles in copyright law that are at risk from the increased use of contracts to displace default copyright rules. The article calls for the courts to return to Supremacy Clause preemption to prevent the degradation of important public interest safeguards in the copyright law.     

习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义

有关刑事法治的丰富论述是习近平法治思想的重要组成部分,可以将习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义概括为“宽严相济,以发展眼光看问题”的刑事政策论、“完善对违法犯罪行为的惩治和矫正法律”的刑事立法论、“守住防范冤错案件的底线”的刑事司法论、“综合施策、标本兼治”的犯罪治理论。习近平法治思想中的刑事法要义在吸收国际社会刑事法治文明成果的同时,较为集中地体现了对中华法治文明的传承与弘扬。刑事法治建设与刑事法研究必须以习近平刑事法治思想为根本遵循,深刻领悟和把握习近平刑事法治思想的博大精深,避免做西方刑事法治经验与理论的“搬运工”。     

隐私权的判定——“合理隐私期待标准”的确立与适用

隐私权存在与否的判定问题是隐私侵权责任承担的关键所在。而美国联邦最高法院在1967年Katz v.United States案中确立的"合理的隐私期待"标准,在世界多个国家的适用已被证明是比较可行的隐私权的判定方法。我国隐私权司法实践在吸收、借鉴"合理的隐私期待"标准时应明确"私人事实"、"法律规定"、"社会习俗"和"利益平衡"四种隐私期待的客观判断要素,实现判决结果的一致性,及对他人隐私利益最大程度的保护。     

Deduction and Justification in the Law. The Role of Legal Terms and Concepts

Abstract. Legal terms, such as “ownership,”“contract,”“validity,”“negligence,” are used as middle terms in legal deduction. The paper distinguishes two problems regarding this use. One is the logical function of terms for deduction within a normative system. Specific problems dealt with in this connection are meaning, definition, and economy of expression. The other problem connected with middle terms is the “moulding” and possible manipulation of the meaning of legal terms, for arriving at desired conclusions in a given scheme of inference. It is indicated how the moulding of contested legal concepts, if not restricted, will obscure the ratio of legal rules. This problem is relevant, inter alia, to arguments ex analogia in the law.     

Protecting Journalists’ Sources Without a Shield: Four Proposals

Journalists’ right to protect the identities of their confidential sources relies on an inconsistent set of court decisions based on constitutional and common law interpretations and state statutes. Efforts to bring some consistency to federal law through the passage of a shield law have stalled while journalists face new threats because of the vulnerability of their communications to discovery and monitoring by third parties. Also, the entry of non-professional communicators into the news ecosystem is causing courts to reevaluate and redefine long-standing protections. This article proposes four ways that sources could be better protected from unmasking without the passage of a shield law: improving whistleblower laws to better protect people who report illegal or unethical actions to the media; vastly reducing the number of government secrets to make “leaking” less attractive or necessary; changing legal strategy to focus on protecting the anonymity of sources instead of the rights of journalists to keep secrets; and more widespread and intelligent use of encrypted applications and software could all improve the security of journalistic sources. Because of the complexity of amending multiple whistleblower protection laws and changing the government’s document classification system, the article argues that the best solutions may be to persuade news organizations to change legal tactics and to use better encryption technology.     

The “Discourse” of International Law and Humanitarian Intervention

This essay analyzes the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” in the frame of international law in the second half of nineteenth century and identifies the ground of legitimation of this intervention in the violation of presumed universal laws of humanity. The analysis emphasizes the transformation of the paradigm of “humanitarian intervention” into the current doctrine of the “responsibility to protect,” which under the rubric of “responsibility” legitimizes limitations on a state's sovereignty in cases where the state fails to guarantee the protection of its own population. This reconstruction of the genealogy of “humanitarian intervention” illustrates the continual exceptions to the principle of nonintervention, which means that the Westphalian principle of sovereignty has always been violated. Both doctrines—humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect—can be considered “hegemonic techniques” that use so‐called universal concepts in order to legitimize unilateral power interests.     

L’analyse comparée en traduction juridique,ses enjeux,sa nécessité

Translated texts sometimes reflect the writing tradition of the targeted law, but the equivalence of the source legal message, however, must be delivered in the target text. Translating law into a different legal culture cannot be accomplished without comparing laws, whose knowledge is essential to achieving legal equivalence. The way the target text is written should match its culture. Translating law is the moment when languages, cultures and laws meet. To materialize, this encounter has to be based on an ad hoc knowledge of the laws at stake. Then comparative law, translators’ “fellow traveler”, comes into play, preparing them for the exchange. To achieve this, “one only needs two receptions which intersect” (Carbonnier). This move is successful when concepts and notions overlap and the letter of law (substance) and its wording (form) merge, revealing “the spirit of the laws”. Comparative analysis is the way to achieve this result (I). It is conducted here under the light of jurilinguistics with an analysis of terms and concepts presenting various translation difficulties, demonstrating the necessity of comparative law (II). The lessons to be learned are aimed at all language professionals wishing to draw inspiration from the jurilinguists’comparative analysis approach to their work.     

人与人格分离技术的形成、发展与变迁——兼论德国民法中的权利能力

人格是特定社会的准入条件,因而生物人与法律人的分离,乃是法律人格制度的基本模式。这个模式中核心的要素,就是法律人格的“适格判断”的标准。在法律文明的早期,血缘、地域、财产等身份要素,充当着法律人格的判别标准,由此所引起的身份人格必然带有不平等的色彩。近代法律人格的基本特点,就是个人的伦理属性成为了法律人格的适格标准,由此奠定了近代法律人人平等的基础。《德国民法典》上的“权利能力”概念,是由实定法所界定的法律人格的适格条件,这一实定法上的概念,仍然是建立在关于人的伦理性判断的基础之上的。