论上市公司股东代理权征集滥用的规制--以新《证券法》第90条为对象

股东代理权征集对上市公司治理具有"双刃剑"的作用,其优势与弊端共存的特性使其更需严格规制以防止被滥用。从法理层面进行分析、并结合以往征集投票权实践所暴露的问题可知,新《证券法》第90条相比以前法律规范虽有重大进步,但仍存在对代理权征集滥用规制的不足。可以运用代理人道德风险理论、信义义务理论解释和规制代理权征集滥用行为。分析新《证券法》第90条规定可知,对征集人资格、条件和行使权利程序规定的不足,对征集过程中信息披露和违法征集损害赔偿责任等事项的粗放式规定都可能带来代理权征集的滥用。为了更有效地规制代理权征集滥用行为,应从限缩征集人资格和条件、确立代理权征集决策程序的内部控制机制、强制披露包括征集目的在内的法定信息披露制度和差异化信息披露制度、实施证券"看门人"见证制度等入手,进一步完善新《证券法》第90条规定和加强对代理权征集滥用的规制。     

The UN Security Council,normative legitimacy and the challenge of specificity

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses how the general and abstract concept of legitimacy applies to international institutions, using the United Nations Security Council as an example. We argue that the evaluation of the Security Council’s legitimacy requires considering three significant and interrelated aspects: its purpose, competences, and procedural standards. We consider two possible interpretations of the Security Council’s purpose: on the one hand, maintaining peace and security, and, on the other, ensuring broader respect for human rights. Both of these purposes are minimally morally acceptable for legitimacy. Second, we distinguish between three different competences of the UNSC: 1) the decision-making competence, 2) the quasi-legislative competence, and 3) the referral competence. On this basis, we argue that different procedural standards are required to legitimise these competences, which leads to a more differentiated understanding of the Security Council’s legitimacy. While maintaining that the membership structure of the Council is a severe problem for its legitimacy, we suggest other procedural standards that can help to improve its overall legitimacy, which include broad transparency, deliberation, and the revisability of the very terms of accountability themselves.     

Legitimacy and institutional purpose

ABSTRACT

Institutions undertake a huge variety of constitutive purposes. One of the roles of legitimacy is to protect and promote an institution’s pursuit of its purpose; state legitimacy is generally understood as the right to rule, for example. When considering legitimacy beyond the state, we have to take account of how differences in purposes change legitimacy. I focus in particular on how differences in purpose matter for the stringency of the standards that an institution must meet in order to be legitimate. An important characteristic of an institution’s purpose is its deontic status, i.e. whether it is morally impermissible, merely permissible, or mandatory. Although this matters, it does so in some non-obvious ways; the mere fact of a morally impermissible purpose is not necessarily delegitimating, for example. I also consider the problem of conflicting, multiple, and contested institutional purposes, and the different theoretical roles for institutional purpose. Understanding how differences in purpose matter for an institution’s legitimacy is one part of the broader project of theorizing institutional legitimacy in the many contexts beyond the traditional context of the state.     

The legitimacy of occupation authority: beyond just war theory

ABSTRACT

So far, most of the philosophical literature on occupations has tried to assess the legitimacy of military rule in the aftermath of armed conflicts by exclusively employing the theoretical resources of just war theory. In this paper, I argue that this approach is mistaken. Occupations occur during or in the aftermath of wars but they are fundamentally a specific type of rule over persons. Thus, theories of political legitimacy should be at least as relevant as just war theory for the moral evaluation of occupations. This paper, therefore, draws on both traditions and argues that just war theory plays a limited role in identifying the purposes and appropriate agents of occupation authority, but that theories of legitimacy are necessary for explaining why and under which conditions foreign actors have the right to rule in the aftermath of armed conflicts.     

恶意透支型信用卡诈骗司法认定中若干疑难问题探析

最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布的《关于办理妨害信用卡管理刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》对恶意透支作出了进一步规定,并确定了"经发卡银行两次催收后超过三个月仍不归还"的限制条件。但在司法实践中,对于如何理解经发卡银行两次催收后超过三个月仍不归还、两次催收的认定、三个月的宽限期计算等问题仍存在争议,本文试对以上几个问题进行探讨。     

扒窃的实质解释——以结果无价值为基本立场

刑法上的扒窃需要充分考虑刑法目的和罪刑法定原则进行实质解释.扒窃入罪的根据应站在结果无价值立场进行分析,这一根据正是甄别、筛选和归纳扒窃概念诸要素的实质理由.扒窃行为只有达到足以造成数额较大损失的程度才能认定为犯罪.依此,扒窃是指行为人在公共领域对一般人所携带财物实施的技术性盗窃行为.同时,刑法上扒窃不以财物“随身”携带和“秘密性”为必要条件.     

Investment Treaty Law and the Fear for Sovereignty: Transnational Challenges and Solutions

This article addresses the vagueness, and the interpretative challenges associated with, international investment agreements (IIAs) and develops a new normative framework for interpreting these treaties. It focuses on the historical embedding of investment protection as a means of facilitating economic development as well as upon its synthetic public law nature. The analysis shows that a teleological approach to interpretation imposes boundaries on the meaning of substantive IIA provisions. The article then elaborates how the transnational dimension of IIAs provides a benchmark, which is the level of protection offered to economic actors against interference by the state in countries with the highest rule of law standards. The article then shows how the resulting challenges of comparative public law could be addressed through the methodology of re‐ and pre‐statement of transnational uniform ‘principles’: sophisticated and detailed rules striking the proper balance between private economic interests and the public regulatory interest, so as to provide more legal certainty for both investors and host states.     

行为无价值论与积极一般预防

犯罪是和刑罚相对应的概念,合理的违法性论必定与能够充分发挥其效果的刑罚论相联系;离开对刑罚相关问题的认识,不可能清晰地揭示犯罪的本质。特殊预防和由费尔巴哈所首倡的消极一般预防都存在明显缺陷。积极一般预防论的主旨是通过指导公众的行为,确立公众对于规范的认同、尊重进而预防犯罪。行为无价值二元论认为犯罪的本质是违反行为规范进而造成法益侵害,刑法的目的就是维护社会基本行为准则的存在并最终保护法益,相应地,对刑罚的目的就不应当定位于通过威慑来阻止现实或者潜在的犯罪人和社会一般人今后不犯罪,而是要凸显规范的意义,引导公众按照行为规范行事,因而主张积极的、规范的一般预防,使犯罪论和刑罚论浑然一体、前后照应。肯定积极的一般预防论有助于准确认定中止犯、过失犯;同时,不会造成重刑化,不会无端限制个人行动自由。     

诉讼目的对证明标准建构的影响——三大诉讼比较研究的视角

诉讼目的主导着证明标准的构建,证明标准体现着诉讼目的的要求.刑事、民事和行政三大诉讼在诉讼目的方面的共性是发现真实、促进诉讼,更能体现其特质的是三大诉讼特有的诉讼目的,具体表现为刑事诉讼的“保障人权”、民事诉讼的“解决纠纷”和行政诉讼的“监督权力”,这些特有目的与三大诉讼处理案件性质的差异息息相关,对三大诉讼证明标准的建构产生了重要的影响.     

关于金融犯罪《刑法》分类的理性思考

我国金融犯罪分类在理论上的争议主要是围绕对金融诈骗罪独立设节的必要性与合理性问题展开的,在明晰金融诈骗犯罪立法沿革背景下,基于对犯罪客体概念的重申和犯罪客体的犯罪化与犯罪分类机能的认知,我国金融诈骗犯罪独立设节虽然能突出国家对该类犯罪的重视,但是违背了我国以同类客体作为《刑法》分则章节设置的标准。从实然的法规范和应然的法体系视角来看,应将其纳入《破坏金融管理秩序罪》一节中;从应然的目的性视角来审视,未来《刑法》进行补正解释或将其纳入《财产犯罪》一章也许更具正当性与合理性,也是对我国国权主义刑法向民权主义刑法转变的有力回应。