商事人格权理论问题探析

人格权随着民事主体的形式化与人格利益对主体的外在化而产生。现代意义上的人格权产生的基础已经不再是自然人的伦理价值,而是法律上不同主体得以存在的区别性个性特征。以自然人的伦理价值为客体的传统人格权难以涵盖以商主体财产价值为客体的人格权,亦即无法为商主体提供更周全的保护。确立商事人格权应是符合实践需要的方向。     

国际强行法保护的人权

人权并不存在等级 ,所有的人权 ,包括公民权利 ,政治权利 ,经济、社会和文化权利 ,对于维护人的尊严都具有同等的重要性。在国际人权法上有一些人权属于“受国际强行法保护的人权”。但是 ,这些人权也不是更重要和更高级的人权 ,它们是维护人的尊严所需要的“最低限度的人权”。     

论知识经济时代商业秘密保护主流理论:保密关系学说与财产权论

在探究商业秘密保护制度的形成及发展进程方面,国外及国内的许多学者与法官曾先后提出了调整商业秘密关系的诸多理论,它们对当代商业秘密保护制度的建立与完善起到了巨大促进作用,然而,在这些众多的理论中,最能准确把握商业秘密特征,对西方国家商业秘密法律制度的形成最具影响力的则当属商业秘密的"财产权理论"和"保密关系理论"。深入考察保密关系学说和财产权论的形成及发展轨迹,将有助于了解目前英美及其他国家商业秘密保护制度。     

试析我国不动产登记制度

我国不动产登记制度起步较晚,发育也很不完善,建立完善的不动产登记制度迫在眉睫。本文试图应用物权法基本原理,结合国外不动产登记立法和实践经验,通过剖析我国现行不动产登记制度存在的问题,对我国不动产登记制度的健全与完善提一些建设性构想。     

论私有财产权宪法保障体系的构建

私有财产权的宪法保障问题一直以来为学界所关注和讨论 ,但是具体如何保障 ,理论上缺乏系统的构建 ,而这正是修宪之前亟待解决的问题。应当紧扣“权利保障”这一内核 ,深入探究私有财产权的应有价值内涵 ,在此指引下构建一套系统化的宪法保障体系。这对于转型时期我国的市场经济建设和民主法治建设具有相当深远的意义。     

论《旅游权利法案》的国际法性质及在我国的适用

《旅游权利法案》是世界旅游组织制定的规范性文件，属习惯国际法，可通过国家实践和法律确信在内国得到适用。我国在制定旅游基本法时应转化和吸纳其相关原则、制度与规范，以国家立法形式使《旅游权利法案》在我国得到适用。     

论WTO劳工标准之争与中国“劳动三权”制度的完善

尽管是否将贸易制裁与核心劳工标准的实施挂钩在WTO内存在激烈的争论,但将这两者挂钩可能是将来的发展趋势.因此重视核心劳工标准、尤其是"劳动三权"(自由结社权、罢工权和集体谈判权)具有非常重要的意义.与国际劳工组织制定的劳工标准相比,我国在"劳动三权"的立法上还存在不足,将来必然会对我国的对外贸易产生不良影响,也不利于我国人权的保障.因此,我们应修改<宪法>、<劳动法>、<工会法>和制定<罢工法>,对工会成立和解散的程序、组织体制、领导体制、会员资格、经费来源等进行相应改革,对集体谈判和集体合同制度进行完善,对工会和工人的罢工权给以明确肯定并对其权利的行使加以法律规范.     

《民法典》背景下知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度的路径选择——从国家治理现代化的视角切入

《中华人民共和国民法典》在知识产权领域全面引入了惩罚性赔偿制度。而针对之前商标领域的实证研究却发现,因为在直接公共规制与间接公共规制两种手段之间的选择,知识产权保护与消费维权的情况并不相同,惩罚性赔偿制度在知识产权领域不能得到广泛适用。从国家治理现代化的视角出发,将惩罚性赔偿进行类型化研究并细分为报应性损害赔偿和威慑性损害赔偿两种,并主张由一元选择模式转为二元选择模式,可以回应关于追求报应正义还是矫正正义的原点争论。而借鉴国外经验,并运用新比较经济学中的制度可能性边界模型对知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度的类型化进行阐释,能够说明知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度对直接、间接两种规制手段的依赖关系,进而形成审理不同类型知识产权惩罚性赔偿案件的裁判逻辑,且实现在知识产权保护中的利益平衡。     

The History and Future Trends of ART Medicine and Law

The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (“ART”) have resulted in over eight million births to date, heralding remarkable advances in reproductive medicine with a transformational impact on both medicine and law. The effects have been acutely felt on the modern family, as well as on a myriad of areas of legal practice—including Family Law, Estate Planning, Contract, Health, Constitutional, Criminal, Discrimination, Tort Law and, for international arrangements, Immigration and Citizenship laws. This article examines the historical context, present impact, and future trends of ART and the Law. Its purpose is to help better understand these unique developments in order to help law and policy makers harness and craft the policies and frameworks that will be needed to monitor, shape and guide these remarkable possibilities for participants, professionals, law and society.     

Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors

Despite recent innovations in alternative reproduction technology and the increased use of artificial insemination procedures, courts and legislatures have been unable to develop a clear and consistent test to establish the parental rights and obligations of sperm donors. As a result, there are mixed outcomes in cases where intended parents seek child support from an unsuspecting donor or when donors petition the court for visitation with their biological children. This Note seeks to resolve the ambiguity in determining sperm donors’ parental status by proposing a model state statute that makes nonpaternity the default rule. Under the statute, sperm donors would not be subject to any of the parental rights or obligations of a traditional biological father. However, the presumption of nonpaternity could be overcome if the parties agree, in writing, prior to the insemination. Further, the model statute provides an exception to the default rule if the donor has played an active role in the child's life. Adopting this model statute will not only facilitate a market for sperm donation but also make donor rights and obligations clear from the onset.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Today, infants born using artificial reproduction technology (ART) represent more than one percent of children born in the United States annually.
• When a donor is anonymous, the law is clear: the donor is not a legal parent. However, the law regarding known donors is less straightforward. Depending on the state and the particular circumstances, the parental status of a known donor is questionable.
• The ambiguity in the law creates confusion and disagreement among the parties in a donor agreement. By comparing factually similar cases, in which courts interpreted donor statutes with identical language, in completely opposite ways, it is easy to see the unpredictability in ART cases.
• The proposed model statute provides unambiguous legislation that sets out a clear standard to be used in determining the parental status of known donors. If adopted by state legislatures, courts across the country would finally have a consistent rule to apply, leading to less confusion and contradictory rulings.
• The key issue is honoring intentional parentage and the proactive choice to use ART to have a child on one's own terms.