论市场支配地位的法律规定——《中华人民共和国反垄断法》第17条第2款释论

我国《反垄断法》第17条第2款是确定市场支配地位的判断性条款,其中经营者、相关市场以及市场支配地位的判定三项内容是理解第17条第2款的关键,本文从以上三方面着手,同时阐述该条款与相邻法条的联系,剖析我国反垄断法第17条第2款。     

物权保护制度的立法选择 评《物权法草案》第三章

<正>一、问题的提出中国现行民事立法是以1986年4月12日通过,1987年1月1日施行的《中华人民共和国民法通则》(以下简称《民法通则》)为核心建立起来的民事法律体系。有关物权保护制度的一般规则体现在《民法通则》第5条、第73条、第74条、第75条、第83条、第106条第2款及第3款、第117条和第134条第1款及第2款。在《民法通则》的上述各项规定中,第106条第2款、第117条以及第134条第1款可谓是物权保护制度的核心内容。它们确立了一种不同于     

《刑法》第29条第2款的法理分析

尽管刑法第23条第1款和第29条第1款给共犯从属性说留出了论证空间,但刑法第29条第2款构成了该说的法律障碍,该款事实上反映的是教唆的独立性。在解释该款时,应将法律规定上教唆的未遂和学理上未遂的教唆区分开,并将该款解释为立法上规定的、教唆犯独立成立的例外条款。虽然独立性例外说和两重性说一样,都会促成将第29条第2款解释为未遂,以及都无法解决因立法之故而导致的处刑失调,但在法律适用上和从属性原则立场上,独立性例外说并不同于两重性说。     

无交易境内外上市公司股份的执行

境外上市公司的非境外上市股份并未在证券交易所正常交易流通,属于最高人民法院《关于人民法院强制执行股权若干问题的规定》第1条所称的股权,执行中可以适用前述司法解释的部分规定。第一,确定处置参考价时,应当依照第11条、第12条第1款的规定执行;第二,确定变价方式时,应当依照第12条第2款、第3款和第13条的规定执行;第三,股份变更需相关部门审批的,应当依照第15条的规定执行。     

《侵权责任法》第36条第3款研究

从法律解释和司法实践角度看,《侵权责任法》第36条采纳客观过错理论,第3款的“知道”在过错类型上是指故意,应解释为“有合理理由知道”,“应当知道”是过失,不能被“知道”(故意)所涵盖.“必要措施”包括删除、断开连接、屏蔽等.在法律适用上,第36条的第2款和第3款不存在适用顺位先后问题,对受害人而言,第3款的举证责任大于第2款的举证责任.     

《刑法》第149条第1款的性质及其适用——兼论刑法中的“以假充真型”伪劣产品

在形式逻辑上,《刑法》第149条第1款具有注意规定和法律拟制的双重性质。但从犯罪属性和犯罪构成层面进行实质分析,《刑法》第149条第1款应当是注意规定。将《刑法》第149条第1款定性为法律拟制,违反《刑法》第3条前段的规定,与《刑法》第140条规定的犯罪构成不符。基于《刑法》第149条第1款注意规定的性质,援引该款并适用《刑法》第140条应当具备两个条件:一是涉案对象是《刑法》第142—143条、第145—148条规定的伪劣商品,二是涉案对象又属于《刑法》第140条和司法解释规定的伪劣产品。因此,"依照本节第一百四十条的规定定罪处罚"是"可以型"规范,而不是"应当型"规范。     

触犯刑法第191条第2款的犯罪行为应如何定性

我国刑法第191条第1款规定:“邮电工作人员私自开拆或者隐匿、毁弃邮件、电报的,处二年以下有期徒刑或者拘役.”第2款又规定:“犯前款罪而窃取财物的,依     

“组织、强迫、引诱幼女卖淫”规定再解读

《刑法修正案（九）》删除嫖宿幼女罪意味着否定了幼女是卖淫女。然而，《刑法》第358条第2款存在“组织、强迫未成年人卖淫”的规定，第359条第2款存在“引诱不满十四周岁的幼女卖淫”的规定。如果认为“幼女卖淫”不能成立，则会使第359条第2款沦为废款，如果承认“幼女卖淫”的成立，则又难免再次让幼女污名化。卖淫的本质是对性服务的交易，在“组织、强迫、引诱幼女卖淫”规定中，交易性服务即卖淫的主体是组织、强迫、引诱者，该规定应被解读为“组织、强迫、引诱者以幼女为手段，通过幼女来交易性服务”。组织、强迫、引诱幼女卖淫行为在触犯组织卖淫罪、强迫卖淫罪、引诱幼女卖淫罪之外，同时触犯强奸罪，对其应以想象竞合原理处断。     

我国船舶所有权变动模式之检讨——以法释[2012]8号第10条和法释[2016]5号第6条为中心

《海商法》第9条第1款、《物权法》第24条构成了我国船舶所有权变动的基本规则.法释[2012]8号第10条有违登记对抗主义的基本价值,不利于保障交易安全,贬损我国船舶登记制度;法释[2016]5号第6条将转让人的债权人排除在“善意第三人”的范围之外,同样难以贯彻登记对抗主义的本旨.我国船舶所有权变动模式的完善应当坚持“交付生效+登记对抗”的立法模式,贯彻登记对抗主义的立法价值,重新认识船舶与机动车的属性差别,审慎考量法学理论与交易安全的价值取舍.     

容忍代理抑或默示授权——《民法通则》第66条第1款第3句解析

从文义上看,《民法通则》第66条第1款第3句之规定既可以解释为容忍代理,也可以解释为默示授权。容忍代理在性质上属于一种表见代理,在《合同法》第49条已经对表见代理作出专门规定的情况下,不宜再将《民法通则》第66条第1款第3句之规定解释为容忍代理,应该在《合同法》第49条的框架内构造容忍代理的要件。     

关于无限防卫权问题的再探讨

新刑法第二十条第三款之规定,刑法学界人士较多认为是规定了“无限防卫权”,且对这一规定的利弊颇有争议。本文在对无限防卫权的概念及一些相关问题进行考证之后,从根本上否定了新刑法规定了无限防卫权,认为第二十条第三款之规定仍然是受该条第二款规定所制约的有限防卫。     

The citizen‐makers: Ethical dilemmas in immigrant integration

The topic of citizen‐making—turning migrants into citizens—is one of the most politically contested policy areas in Europe. Access to European citizenship is governed by national law with almost no EU regulation. The Article brings to the fore normative concerns associated with citizen‐making policies in Europe (Section 2). It examines ethical dilemmas involved in the process of creating new citizens (Section 3) and promotes the adoption of a European legal framework on access to citizenship (Section 4). The overall claim is that every newcomer will be required to demonstrate, as a prerequisite for citizenship, attachments to the constitution of the specific Member State, yet the test will be functional, flexible and non‐exclusive. As the topic of EU citizenship law is currently at the centre of the European agenda, this article has both theoretical significance and policy implications.     

Section 525(a) of the bankruptcy code plainly does not apply to Medicare provider agreements

Section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code prevents government entities from discriminating against debtors based on the debtor's bankruptcy filing. This Article analyzes how this provision is applied to healthcare providers who file for bankruptcy. Some commentators have expressed concerns that because of Section 525, the federal government is unable to deny a bankrupt provider a new Medicare provider agreement due to the debtor's failure to pay debts discharged during bankruptcy. This Article, however, argues that Section 525 does not apply to a provider agreements because it is not a "license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant" as defined by the statute. Therefore, the author concludes that debtor healthcare providers should not be allowed back into the Medicare program without first paying their statutorily required debts.     

The Standard of Review Strikes Back: the US-Korea Drams Appeal

This article contains a brief analysis of how the WTO AppellateBody identified and applied a standard of review in the recentUS–Korea DRAMS Appeal and its implications for this aspectof WTO jurisprudence in the future. Section I discusses theformulation of the objective assessment test and its developmentthrough subsequent cases. Section II sets out the backgroundto the US–Korea DRAMS decision and summarizes the reasoningof the Appellate Body in determining that the panel had notcomplied with its obligations under Article 11 of the DisputeSettlement Understanding. Section III discusses the implicationsof this decision for panels and parties. It is suggested thatthis decision evidences the significant development of the standardof review under the WTO dispute-settlement system. However,it is suggested that the standard is becoming more complex innature, and it may be increasingly difficult for panels to complywith Article 11 without a clear restatement of applicable principlesby the Appellate Body.     

First amendment protection for online platforms

The United States is home to some of the largest online platforms in the world, in part due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 provides platforms with extraordinarily broad immunity from lawsuits arising from user content. The statute is under unprecedented scrutiny, and Congress already has amended the statute to weaken its protections. This Article examines the First Amendment protections that would remain for online platforms if Congress were to entirely eliminate Section 230. After reviewing pre-Internet cases involving offline distributors such as bookstores and newsstands, this Article concludes that although the First Amendment would offer some protections to platforms, these protections would be limited and likely would require platforms to significantly alter their operations and business models.     

First Amendment Protection for Online Platforms

The United States is home to some of the largest online platforms in the world, in part due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 provides platforms with extraordinarily broad immunity from lawsuits arising from user content. The statute is under unprecedented scrutiny, and Congress already has amended the statute to weaken its protections. This Article examines the First Amendment protections that would remain for online platforms if Congress were to entirely eliminate Section 230. After reviewing pre-Internet cases involving offline distributors such as bookstores and newsstands, this Article concludes that although the First Amendment would offer some protections to platforms, these protections would be limited and likely would require platforms to significantly alter their operations and business models.     

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.     

关于我国刑法中性犯罪问题的几点思考

强奸罪的犯罪主体、犯罪对象不宜有性别限制,建议将我国《刑法》第236条第1款中的“强奸妇女”修订为“强奸他人”,将第2款中的“奸淫幼女”修订为“奸淫儿童”;强制猥亵侮辱妇女罪的罪名不够妥当,建议删去《刑法》第237条第1款中的“侮辱妇女”字样,将“强制猥亵妇女”修订为“强制猥亵他人”;将奸淫儿童作为独立罪名设置,增设过失奸淫儿童罪。     

论公司担保能力限制

实践中公司为他人提供担保已相当普遍,而我国现行《公司法》却未曾十分明确地规定公司担保能力的限制。本文经由评析学界和司法实践对《公司法》第60条第3款及其他相关规定的理解,并比较分析了英美法系、大陆法系的相关立法例,论证得出我国公司法应赋予公司有限制的担保能力,即《公司法》不应禁止公司提供担保,但应当从担保数额、判断有效的标准、决策程序上予以适当的限制。     

WTO体制内国内法的可诉性问题

在一般国际法理论与实践中,国内法本身可以单独构成国际争端解决程序的诉因。WTO体制内国内法可诉的法律依据是GATT1994第23条、DSU第3.8条以及《WTO协定》第16.4条。在WTO争端解决实践中,专家组和上诉机构的裁决呈现出一个重要的趋势:在美国“301条款”案前,遵循GATT1947时期专家组所确立的“裁量性立法与强制性立法之区分”的习惯性做法;在美国“301条款”案后,不再严格遵循这一习惯性做法。WTO体制内国内法之可诉性问题目前尚没有一个统一、明确的答案。