Causeless complicity

I argue, contrary to standard claims, that accomplice liability need not be a causal relation. One can be an accomplice to another’s crime without causally contributing to the criminal act of the principal. This is because the acts of aid and encouragement that constitute the basis for accomplice liability typically occur in contexts of under- and over-determination, where causal analysis is confounded. While causation is relevant to justifying accomplice liability in general, only potential causation is necessary in particular cases. I develop this argument through the example of the role of U.S. legal officials in abetting the acts of unlawful interrogation that have taken place since 2001. I also suggest that there may be a limited justification for ex post ratificatory accomplice liability.

论输血及血液制品感染的侵权责任——基于日本法上的经验

在医学界,血液被称为"生命的源泉"。然而,近年来,随着临床用血和血液制品使用的大量增加,患者感染梅毒、肝炎、甚至艾滋病的案例已屡见不鲜。而上世纪末,我们的邻国日本也曾遭遇过同样的"血液之殇",日本司法实践在处理诸如"东大梅毒事件"、"药害肝炎事件"、"药害艾滋事件"上的成功经验会带给我国怎样的启示,以下将对日本法上血液的法律属性、医疗过失的判断标准、因果关系的证明以及医药产品责任主体的责任分配等进行分析,并结合我国《侵权责任法》相关规定,从法解释学的角度出发,针对我国司法现状,探讨日本法对我国在法律解释适用方面的借鉴意义。     

Interpretation,judgement and dialogue: a hermeneutical recollection of causal analysis in critical terrorism studies

ABSTRACT

This article problematises Critical Terrorism Studies’s (CTS) seeming reluctance to engage in causal explanation. An analysis of the meta-theoretical assumptions on causation in both orthodox and critical terrorism studies reveals that the latter’s refusal to incorporate causal analysis in its broader research agenda reproduces – despite its commitment to epistemological pluralism – the former’s understanding of causation as the only sustainable one. Elemental to this understanding is the idea that causation refers to the regular observation of constant conjunction. Due to the positivist leanings of such a conception, CTS is quick to dismiss it as consolidating Orthodox Terrorism Studies’s lack of critical self-reflexivity, responsibility of the researcher, and dedication towards informing state-led policies of counterterrorism. Drawing on recent work in the philosophy of science and International Relations, this article advances an alternative understanding of causation that emphasises its interpretative, normative and dialogical fabric. It is therefore argued that CTS should reclaim causal analysis as an essential element of its research agenda. This not only facilitates a more robust challenge against Orthodox Terrorism Studies’ conventional understanding of causation but also consolidates CTS’s endeavour of deepening and broadening our understanding that (re)embeds terrorist violence in its historical and social context.     

Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law

This article defends a set of exceptions to the general rule in tort law that a claimant must prove that a particular defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause of its injury on the balance of probabilities in order to be entitled to compensatory damages in respect of that injury. The basic rationale for each exception is that it provides a means of enforcing the defendant's secondary moral duty to its victim. The article further demonstrates that the acceptance of this set of exceptions does not undermine the general rule.     

合伙企业破产三题——以美国法为主要比较素材的分析

我国2006年8月修改颁布的《合伙企业法》已经赋予合伙企业以破产能力,但仅简单规定了其破产清算参照适用破产法规定的程序。由于合伙企业在组织形式、财产构成以及责任方式等方面与一般法人企业存在明显的差异,对企业破产法的参照适用中存在许多疑难问题亟待解决。     

谈证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事诉讼

长期以来,我国证券市场侵权诉讼立法以及司法实践都处于滞后状态,甚至一度出现了暂不受理此类案件的情形。但在加入WTO后,我国明显加快了证券市场立法步伐。随着立法的不断完善,在司法审判实践中要求更好地予以贯彻执行。证券市场虚假陈述民事侵权案件是法院在受理的案件中较复杂的、专业性、技术性很强的案件。涉及到一系列证券专业知识及技术。因此,新出台的《规定》对该类案件中原、被告的确定、被告的归责责任、因果关系认定、诉讼模式、前置程序、赔偿额的确定等方面作了详细的规定。     

美国虚假陈述民事诉讼因果关系的认定及启示

虚假陈述与一般侵权行为相比具有不同的特点,投资者往往难以证明侵权者虚假陈述行为与所受损失之间的因果关系,因此对因果关系的认定应当采用与一般侵权法不同的方法。本文简要介绍了美国对虚假陈述民事诉讼中因果关系认定作出的改革。美国法院采用目标认定法和市场欺诈理论,减轻了投资者对被告的虚假陈述行为与其所受损害之间因果关系的证明责任,从而极大地保护了投资者利益。我国虚假陈述民事诉讼司法解释虽然部分地借鉴了美国的做法,但仍存在不足,需要进一步完善。     

产品警示缺陷若干问题研究——以美国产品责任法为背景

警示缺陷意味着产品警示适当性的缺失。适当的产品警示在内容、语言、设计以及位置方面均需满足一定的要求,而且还应当排除不必要警示的干扰。警示缺陷的认定采用风险-效用的权衡分析与消费者合理期待标准相结合的方法。在警示缺陷诉讼中,过失责任为适当的归责原则;因果关系的证明是追究生产者警示缺陷责任必须具备的前提,生产者可以主张特定的抗辩事由来对抗产品最终用户的权利要求。     

被害人行为介入下的因果关系——评凤凰少女跳楼案

因果关系的判断在刑法理论上是一直颇具争议的问题，司法实践中对因果关系的判断也存在疑难。在危害行为引起危害结果的过程中，介入了被害人自己行为时，应当采用相当因果关系说，站在客观的立场来判断刑法的因果关系。同时，需要对实行行为本身的危险性、实行行为和介入行为对结果的作用力、介入行为的异常性进行分析，以便从整体上把握因果关系本身的相当性。