量刑基准研究

量刑问题是刑法理论的缩图,所以,确定量刑的基准问题也就是确定量刑的根据问题。我国确立的量刑基准应是以责任为主,兼顾特殊预防的需要。即应根据犯罪的严重性的大小,并考虑特殊预防之需要,在责任的基础上量定刑罚。     

公司担保无效责任的复位——基于责任性质、主体与效果的区分视角

在实践中,即使公司担保行为无效,公司仍然普遍须承担实质上类似有效担保的责任。这一不合理现象的原因在于法院对过错的不当界定乃至强加。以过错为线索,可以区分担保无效责任在性质和主体上的不同层次。在性质上,当担保合同自身无效时,公司承担缔约过失责任;在担保合同因主合同无效而无效时,公司只承担故意侵权责任。在主体上,行为归属要先于过错判断,当代表人行为可约束公司时,公司承担责任;否则由代表人自行承担责任,公司无须承担替代责任。责任主体的区分会进一步导致担保行为"无效"和"不生效力"的区分。性质和主体的区分会相应校正担保无效责任的范围,并排除追偿权。唯有使公司担保无效责任回归一般体系,才能避免过度强调或者不当忽略公司担保的特殊性。     

网络平台的公共性及其实现——以电商平台的法律规制为视角

网络平台是组织生产力的新型主体,在数字经济时代承担着维护网络市场秩序、保障用户权益的公共职能。网络平台对其用户,特别是对平台内经营者,具有强大的支配力和影响力,此种平台权力属于典型的私权力。网络平台行使私权力有助于减少平台内经营行为的负外部性,弥补政府规制能力的不足,但其私权力也容易遭到滥用。除了要借助市场竞争机制和传统私法规范约束平台私权力,还有必要引入公法原理及其价值要求,对平台私权力进行适度干预。网络平台制定和实施规则时,应遵循基本的程序正义和实体正义标准。法院应对平台滥用私权力的行为进行必要的司法审查。立法者应根据权责利相统一的原则,科学合理地设置平台责任。     

主动“加码”:基层政策执行新视角--基于H省J县的村干部选举案例研究

基层政府如何执行存在"张力"的政策?既有研究关注到基层政府在"压力型体制"下通过"变通"、"共谋"等非正式运作执行被上级"加码"的政策。由于"加码"导致既有政策"张力"的增加,作为权力末梢的基层对于"加码"避之不及。吊诡的是,基层时常主动"加码"存在"张力"的政策。如何解释基层主动"制造困难"?本研究以H省J县的村干部选举为案例,揭示基层政府主动"加码"存在"张力"政策的逻辑:主动"加码"被认为是下级向上级"讨价还价"的重要方式,这基于主动"加码"符合上级对完成任务以及晋升的渴求,当基层官员执行存在"张力"的政策时,主动"加码"能够规避政策执行中的潜在风险。简言之,主动"加码"有利于基层官员"卸责"。这对既有研究提供了新的补充:对于存在"张力"的政策,基层政府通过主动"加码"可能更好地完成任务。     

论未登记不动产抵押合同的效力

在不动产抵押合同与登记的关系上，《担保法》的“同一主义原则”已被《物权法》的“区分原则”所取代，“担保法解释”所规定的应景式补救规范应当限制适用（第7条）或废止（第56、57条）。将未登记的不动产抵押合同的效力转换为抵押财产范围内的连带保证，既不符合无效法律行为转换的适用条件，亦未遵循合同的补充性解释规则，不仅有悖于当事人的意思自治，而且未考虑其处理结论的体系辐射效果。未登记不动产抵押合同的效力问题，应在合同法的框架之下考查不动产抵押合同未能登记的具体原因，通过登记请求权、合同解除、违约损害赔偿（可预见性、与有过失）等，合理分配抵押人与债权人的责任。     

人与自然和谐共生现代化建设的生态责任论析

“建设人与自然和谐共生的现代化”这一理念是中国应对全球生态危机风险的顶层方案，也是当代社会主义生态文明观的鲜明体现。它既有马克思主义生态理论作为根基溯源，又有对国内外生态治理经验的充分借鉴，是契合新时代生态文明社会需求的。它彰显出我们既要金山银山,更要绿水青山的初心，其中的责任担当意义非凡。中国共产党人深刻认识到，当前履行生态责任所面临的机遇与挑战不容忽视。机遇表现在改革开放带来综合国力的巨大提升和公民生态意识的日益觉醒，挑战则体现为市场增值效应和人口压力以及国际生态治理环境日益趋紧。为此，我们亟待辨明生态责任的意涵，并坚持从生态环境是最普惠的民生福祉等原则出发，积极推广绿色发展方式、推动绿色技术革命以及培育绿色文化和开展环境外交方面提出解决对策。     

Unequally egalitarian? Defending the credentials of social egalitarianism

Abstract

In his new book, Luck Egalitarianism, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen responds to challenges raised by social egalitarians against luck egalitarianism. Social egalitarianism is the view according to which a just society is one where people relate to each other as equals, while the basic premise of luck egalitarianism is that it is unfair if people are worse-off than others through no fault or choice of their own. Lippert-Rasmussen argues that the most important objections to luck egalitarianism made by social egalitarians can either be largely accommodated by luck egalitarians or lack the argumentative force that its proponents believe them to have. While Lippert-Rasmussen does offer a version of luck egalitarianism that seems to avoid some of the main lines of criticism, he mischaracterizes parts of both the form and the content of the disagreement, and thus ultimately misses the mark. In this paper, we provide a substantive, a methodological and a political defense of social egalitarianism by elaborating on this mischaracterization. More work must be done, we argue, if social egalitarianism is to be dismissed and its concerns genuinely incorporated in the luck egalitarian framework. Until this is done, the supposed theoretical superiority of luck egalitarianism remains contested.     

Part on Ecological and Environmental Responsibility of China's Environmental Code: Comparative Law Referencing and Compilation Philosophy

This paper discusses two questions: Is a specific part on ecological and environmental responsibility a common practice and trend in foreign environmental codes? How are its compiling principles and scope of work determined, and would administrative legal responsibility be arranged elsewhere than in this part?     

Sexual Behavioral Disinhibition Associated with Nucleus Lentiformis Lesion: A Forensic Neuroscience Perspective Through a Case

Organic brain disturbances particularly related to frontal cortex structures and subcortical areas including the basal ganglia may play a role in behavioral disinhibition disorders. Kluver–Bucy syndrome (KBS), which is one of the better knowns of these syndromes, includes hyperorality, visual agnosia, and hypersexuality, has been reported to occur after temporal lobe and amygdala lesions; however, several patients who had focal lesions in areas other than the temporal cortex and amygdala have been reported to present partial KBS symptoms. Nucleus lentiformis refers to a large portion of the basal ganglia including the putamen and globus pallidus, and specific structures within this broad area are known to be important for reward and value-based decision making. To date, KBS symptoms including hypersexual behavior associated with nucleus lentiformis lesions have never been reported. Here, we present a 38-year-old male patient who developed increased sexual interest and hyperorality after infarctions in the right lenticular nucleus and right occipitotemporal region and committed a first-degree sexual assault. He was sent to our institution for the assessment of criminal responsibility to the index sexual crime. According to a comprehensive and thorough forensic psychiatric evaluation, he was diagnosed as having an organic personality disorder with partial KBS symptoms. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of deviant sexual behavior and hyperorality developing after nucleus lentiformis infarction. We aimed to discuss possible neurobiologic explanations of late-onset deviant sexual behavior, which resulted in sexual criminal behavior following a cerebrovascular infarction.     

“Sovereignty as Responsibility”: Intellectual Sources, Evolving Paths, and Theoretical Debates

“Sovereignty as Responsibility” or “Responsible Sovereignty” has emerged as a new issue in IR and sovereignty studies. On the one hand, its emergence stems from the historical logic of sovereignty and its inherent legitimacy requirements; on the other hand, it is also a theoretical choice for dealing with current global issues and puzzles. In essence, “Sovereignty as Responsibility” is not a direct challenge or straightforward deviation from traditional sovereignty theories. During its transfer from Right to Responsibility, “Sovereignty as Responsibility” is actually a consequent product of sovereignty traditions (like Great-Power Responsibility). At the same time, it is also a developing term that enriches its meanings and contents in the process of concept building. Its connotation expands from the functions of “protection” and “prevention” to the function of “building” and even “care.” In general, studies of “Sovereignty as Responsibility” have gradually diverged into two different approaches; Libertarianism and Communitarianism. As a new-born framework, “Sovereignty as Responsibility” has demonstrated several theoretical characteristics in terms of structure, logic, standard, as well as content and levels. However, it also confronts some disputes in terms of theory and challenges in practice.