析合同法移植期前违约制度的合同性

期前违约制度起源于英美法系。我国1999年颁布的《合同法》明确引入了期前违约制度,然而,对我国《合同法》移植期前违约制度,许多学者提出了质疑。笔者通过对英美法系的期前违约制度与大陆法系的不安抗辩权的对比分析,论证了《合同法》移植期前违约制度的合理性。     

论预期违约与不安抗辩的冲突与取舍

为了解决合同生效后至履行前发生在合同履行上的危险,充分体现诚实信用原则及公平原则,避免先履行的一方当事人蒙受损失,不同法系建立了各自独特的相关法律制度。在大陆法系体现为不安抗辩权制度,在英美法系则体现为预期违约制度。《中华人民共和国合同法》借鉴了大陆法传统的基本理论,在第六十八条和第六十九务规定了不安抗辩权制度,同时又吸收了英美法的预期违约制度,在第九十四条和第一百零八条进行了规定。由于两大法系对罗马法的不同继承,产生于不同法律历史传统的类似制度在同一部法律里面很难彻底融合与同化。结果这两种制度在《合同法》中不仅不能够融会贯通,实现立法者所期待的优势互补,相反却造成适用中的冲突和不公等诸方面的问题。如何处理二者矛盾并妥当安排好对债权人履行期待落空的救济途径,本文在分析借鉴的基础上提出相关看法。     

论英美法与CISG中预期违约法律救济制度

预期违约制度是英美法系一项独创制度,英美法将预期违约分为明示毁约和默示毁约,并规定了相应的法律救济措施。《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》借鉴、吸纳了英美法的该项制度,但又有所发展,并将预期违约分为预期非根本违约和预期根本违约,其对预期违约法律救济措施的规定与英美法的规定各有优劣。     

“The Train Has Left the Station”: The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the Shaping of Nanotechnology Policy in the United States

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the efforts of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) in seeking to influence nanotechnology policy in the United States. Using the conceptual framework of anticipatory governance to guide the analysis, a series of strategies that PEN adopted will be described, including leveraging external expertise, developing cross‐disciplinary research products, providing a future‐oriented view on policy analysis, and building a brand for communications and outreach. This case study is a useful example in demonstrating the recent conceptual shift away from relying on government‐led technology assessment efforts to consider the longer‐term implications of new technologies toward the concept of anticipatory governance that includes a more substantive role for nongovernmental actors, that in providing forward‐looking, actionable intelligence for decision makers. Considering the example of PEN also highlights the critical role that boundary‐spanning organizations play in linking together disparate communities of expertise.     

侵害人视角下的正当防卫论

为扭转我国正当防卫审判实践中长期存在的唯结果论倾向,有必要从侵害人的视角出发,对正当防卫的教义学研究重新加以审视。正当防卫的本质除了法益保护,还在于侵害人因违反不得侵害他人法益的义务,主动使自己陷入法益冲突的险境,从而使自身法益的值得保护性下降。侵害人法益值得保护性的下降程度影响着防卫权边界的划定,从而与防卫限度的判断密切相关。如果站在实施防卫行为时,综合考量侵害行为给有效防卫造成的困难、侵害人给防卫人的安全带来的危险程度,能够认定防卫行为是为有效、安全地制止不法侵害所需的最低限度反击手段,则侵害人法益的值得保护性归于消灭,除非被损害的法益与被保护的法益在价值上存在极端悬殊的差别。     

Preventive War and Permissive Normative Order

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. president George W. Bush articulated a new national security strategy based on striking terrorist organizations and the states that harbor them before they could endanger the United States. Though expressed in the language of preemption, the Bush strategy embodied a far more problematic doctrine of preventive warfare. Whereas the grounds for preemption lie in evidence of a credible, imminent threat, the basis for prevention rests on the suspicion of an incipient, contingent threat. We argue that an American national security strategy that embraces preventive war will set an inauspicious precedent, undermining normative restraints on when and how states may use military force.     

The Sovereignty Dodge and the Responsibility to Control: Should the US Do What Pakistan Won't Do?1

The killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was justified by the Obama administration as an act of self-defense. Proponents of an expanded notion of self-defense argue that sovereignty implies responsibility not only for the protection of human rights, but also for the provision of public goods more generally, including effective territorial control. States which are unable to control their territory frequently become safe havens for militants who threaten the security of other states. Pakistan is a paradigmatic case of a ‘sovereignty dodge’ who, in the eyes of the United States, has forfeited its sovereign right to non-interference because of its failure to live up to its responsibility to control. In this article I explore the legality of US strikes against militant targets in Pakistan. I conclude that while international jurisprudence continues to adhere to a conservative reading of the rules on the use of force, states themselves have interpreted the law on self-defense more broadly, evincing a desire to keep the rules as indeterminate as possible.     

Teachers’ Perspectives on Hitting Back in School: Between Inexcusable Violence and Self-Defense

Israeli schools expressly forbid a student to hit back after being attacked. In semistructured interviews,71 Israeli educators were asked for their views on the hitting-back tactic. The interviews compared their attitude toward hitting back as teachers with their take on the matter as parents. The results, analyzed using grounded theory, show that most educators would not object if their children hit back in self-defense when attacked but would discipline students who hit back unless they can prove their claim of self-defense. Interviewees are much less inclined to discipline retaliators who do manage to prove self-defense but feel that investigations to verify self-defense under school conditions are impractical. To deter bullies, they say, teachers must declare their readiness to discipline everyone involved; otherwise, bullies will falsely claim self-defense. The discussion explores the implications of role theory on teachers’ attitudes.     

国际反恐与先发制人军事行动

先发制人军事行动原則上应被禁止。但在极端情况下采取预先性自卫,已在国际上得到越来越多的响应,其可能的法律依据是联合国会员国或联合国机构对联合国宪章的解释实践。预防性军事行动由于明显缺乏国际法律依据,且这种对自卫权的扩大解释没有被国际社会绝大多数成员所接受,故仍应予以严禁。求助于联合国安理会应对国际恐怖威胁仍是一种最为可取的做法,为此各会员国有必要在武力使用的具体标准和程序问题上尽可能达成共识。