论禁止单方接触原则

１９９８年６月１９日，最高人民法院审判委员会第９９５次会议通过了《关于民事经济审判方式改革问题的若干规定》，其中第六条规定：“合议庭成员和独任审判员开庭前不得单独接触一方当事人及其诉讼代理人。”这是我国第一次关于禁止单方接触原则的规定，也是审判方式改...     

“禁止单方接触”原则的内容及其适用

“禁止单方接触”原则的内容及其适用蒋惠岭一般原理在诉讼中，当事人试图用事实和理由影响法官，使法官作出有利于自己的判决，这些行为只能在公开场合（法庭），并在对方当事人参加的情况下进行，这样才能保证司法活动的公正。如果一方当事人在他方不在场的情况下与法官...     

论我国外贸听证制度的完善

我国外贸听证应当采取正式听证的方式。近年来我国外贸听证制度日趋完善,在立法宗旨、听证原则及发起程序方面取得明显的进步,但是仍然存在重大疏漏,在通知、职能分离、回避制度、禁止单方接触、阅览卷宗、言词辩论、案卷排他性和说明理由等方面还缺乏规定或者规定得不够充分,急需补充完善。     

行政程序法的基本原则及相应制度

行政程序法的基本原则宜确立公正、效率、公开等三项原则,并且原则的主要内容应体现在具体的程序制度中。公正原则包括回避、听证、案卷排他、职能分离、禁止单方接触等制度;效率原则包括时效、格式化、代理等制度;公开原则包括告知(说明理由)、阅卷、表明身份等制度。     

民事诉讼法学研究述评

一、民事诉讼基本理论问题研究1 关于民事诉讼程序的价值2 0 0 1年学者们继续对民事诉讼程序的价值予以探讨。有人从民事诉讼目的的角度指出 ,公正、效益应是确定民事诉讼目的必须予以考虑的诉讼价值 ,必须从理论的高度肯定并树立程序公正的独立价值 ,并进而认为 ,在程序公正的诸项内容中 ,程序主体地位的确立与强化、以诉讼主体确信的事实为定案依据、审判者中立的立场三者尤为重要。②有人认为要保障程序公正 ,则必须禁止单方接触 ,因为单方接触违反了公平听证规则 ,背离了反偏见规则和可信证据规则 ,并且还会导致公众对司法公正的怀疑 ,…     

论行政中立——从美国行政法看行政公正的制度保障

为了保障在行政过程中以不偏不倚的方式贯彻落实立法精神,美国以《联邦行政程序法》为基础,制定了一系列保障制度,主要体现为行政裁决和制规过程中的行政官员保持中立、职能分离、禁止单方接触以及以议会的立法监督和行政首脑的执法监督为基本内容的限制政治影响等。但行政公正与中立原则的实现最终有赖于一个有效的司法系统;否则,再合理的制度也注定难以施行。     

基本权利规范的正当程序价值——兼议行政程序法如何保障基本权利

我国宪法中的基本权利规范具有丰富的正当程序价值,行政程序法的制定,需通过宪法解释的方法挖掘基本权利规范的程序价值,使之得到行政程序法的保障。基本权利条款的设置从整体上表征国家与公民之间的平等关系,这种平等关系要求行政程序法建构起交互式的行政程序,吸纳公众有效参与行政过程。人格尊严既包含个别的权利,又是概括的"人权",表征公开、公正的价值,需要行政程序法通过建构回避制度、禁止单方接触制度、职能分离制度和公开制度予以保障。     

禁止不利益变更原则正名论

禁止不利益变更原则于民事诉讼领域的立法例表现为"限制法官于上诉不服声明范围内变更",不宜直接规定"禁止法官对上诉人进行不利益变更";"不得大于上诉请求全部被驳回"以及"单方上诉"不是该原则概念的准确要素;该原则是一项指导和规制法官裁判行为的"预警"性原则;附带上诉制度的适用与该原则的适用并行不悖;我国相关立法并没确立该原则,我国确立该原则欠缺的不是理念基础而是制度基础。     

反对解除规则及其在中国的适用——兼论确立检察机关对辩护律师向被害人调查取证的监督权

反对接触规则,在美国确立了禁止律师和其它律师的委托人进行直接交流的原则。在我国现行刑事诉讼法上,也禁止辩护律师直接向刑事被害人调查取证,规定要经检察机关或人民法院许可后,辩护律师才可以向被害人及其证人调查取证。     

论民法中单方法律行为的体系化调整

泛契约化的调整模式并不能当然适用于单方法律行为。单方法律行为是单方意思自治的外在表现形式,基础在于法律行为,属于私法自治的范畴。与双方法律行为不同,单方法律行为的意思表示一经作出即发生法律效力,因此该种意思表示一般不能予以撤销,在意思表示具有瑕疵时也应如此。除为自己设定义务的单方法律行为之外,不得附条件或期限,否则该行为无效。单方法律行为具有独立的规则,为实现单方法律行为的体系化,避免单方法律行为的契约化,未来应该在民法典总则中规定单方法律行为的一般规则。如此规定,单方法律行为作为债的发生原因才具有存在的基础,民法典各编中的单方法律行为也才具有适用的基础。     

A note on burdens of proof in civil litigation

It has been widely believed that who bears the burden of proof significantly affects the incentives of the legal parties. In particular, Hay and Spier (J Legal Stud 26:413–431, 1997) argues that if legal parties have a commonly accessible body of evidence (perfectly correlated pieces of evidence), the party who bears the burden of proof will present the evidence if and only if the evidence supports his position, while the other party (without the burden) will refrain from presenting it regardless of whether the evidence supports his position. In this paper, I claim that the result will be dramatically changed if the pieces of evidence that each party possesses are not perfectly correlated. I show that each party will present the evidence that supports his position whenever available, regardless of the burden of proof assignment. This implies that allocating the burden of proof does not matter in terms of information elicitation.     

关于民事证明上事实真伪不明状态的基本界定与认知

当事实处于真伪不明状态时,何方当事人应受到不利的裁判,这是法院在审判中所遭遇的一种特殊的诉讼状态。但是,在当前的审判实践中,许多法官对待这种状态的出现不能作出正确的理解与解读。对事实真伪不明状态作出正确的界定,并且在此基础上研究、探讨导致案件事实真伪不明状态的原因与前提条件,将有助于掌握这种现象的规律性,从理性的角度引导法官对案件事实作出公正的裁判。     

代位权有关问题研究

关于债权人的代位权问题,理论界存在诸多争议,司法实践中的标准不一,在代位权诉讼中,债务人的地位是无独立请求权的第三人,应允许其自愿参加诉讼;代位权的客体不应仅限于债务人的具有金钱给付内容的债权;代位权行使的后果应直接归属于债务人。     

National Party Efforts to Recruit State Legislators to Run for the U.S. House

We explore factors that influence the chances that a state legislator will be the target of national party recruitment to run for the U.S. House. Using data from a sample of legislators in 200 U.S. House districts, we find that national party contact reflects strategic considerations of party interests. State legislators serving in professional institutions and in competitive districts are most likely to be contacted by national party leaders. In addition, the analysis suggests that national party leaders may be sensitive to the potential costs to the state legislative party: legislators in institutions that are closely balanced between the parties are slightly less likely to be contacted.     

错误的刑事羁押与国家的赔偿责任

刑事诉讼中的错误羁押与刑事错案常常相伴而生,但二者并非同一概念。错误羁押以刑事程序法为认定依据,即使没有错案发生,羁押行为违反《刑事诉讼法》的规定亦照样构成错误羁押。与错案相联系的错误羁押或合法羁押都应当导致刑事司法机关的国家赔偿责任,而未构成错案但构成错误羁押并因此导致当事人合法权益损害的,国家也应当有条件地承担赔偿责任。国家对无错案条件下错误羁押承担赔偿责任,有利于增强刑事司法机关的程序公正意识和人权保障意识,防止和减少羁押的滥用。     

论婚约解除的民事责任--从我国首例因征婚引出巨额财产纠纷案说起

婚约是男女双方将来缔结婚姻关系的法律行为 ,当事人虽不能基于婚约请求结婚 ,但其仍具有一定的法律效力。基于婚约发生的财产赠与关系 ,实质上是一种附条件的赠与行为 ,婚约解除后应依不当得利予以返还 ;一方擅自解除婚约或因他方过错解除婚约的 ,无过错方可请求损害赔偿。结合国内首例因征婚引出巨额财产纠纷案的分析 ,对上述理论给予了阐述。     

Deliver us from Evil: Protecting the Child When Both Parents Ignore the Order of Protection

Orders of protection are regularly utilized to protect victims of domestic violence as well as their children, by restricting the subject from contact or specific activity with the protected parties. Unfortunately, it is common for the adult protected party to facilitate the violation of these orders in an effort to reconcile with the subject, placing children in danger. This undermines the protection that these orders were intended to offer; without penalty to the protected party. This Note proposes a model statute penalizing any party who knowingly endangers children by facilitating the violation of any order of protection; family or criminal.     

An examination into Trillian basic 3.x contact identification

With the advent of new legislation in the United Kingdom – as well as several high-profile criminal cases – the issue of Internet grooming has been the subject of much recent focus. Of particular interest to the forensic examiner is the ability to trace back from a known suspect's computer system to identify contact with his alleged victims. Specifically, when an allegation of grooming is made, one of the first things the examiner should do is to determine that the suspect's computer system was used to contact the informant's account in the first place. This a strong evidential link between victim and suspect and clearly demonstrates that the suspect was responsible for that contact rather than a third party who may have taken control of the suspect's chat account.     

HIV-positive person who did not disclose status convicted of attempted aggravated assault

On 18 September 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decision in Williams. This is the first case on the issue of criminal liability for HIV exposure decided by the court since its 1998 decision in the Cuerrier case. Williams raised the issue of whether persons with HIV who have unprotected sexual intercourse without disclosing their status to a sexual partner who might already have been infected with the virus, can be convicted of aggravated assault or attempted aggravated assault. The Supreme Court decided that only a charge of attempted aggravated assault could stand. The decision is also significant because the Supreme Court's comments on two ancillary issues may lead to a significant extension of the criminal law related to HIV transmission or exposure.     

行政诉讼撤诉:问题与对策

撤诉是当事人对诉权进行处分的重要体现,也是法院终结诉讼的重要方式,目前甚至成为主要方式。有些是当事人自愿撤诉,有些是由于被告改变具体行政行为而撤诉,也有的是当事人迫于压力撤诉。原因既有传统法律文化的影响,又有政治体制的因素,还有行政诉讼制度设计本身存在的问题。所以,建构科学的行政诉讼撤诉制度对实现行政诉讼目的有重要意义。