第三人过错不应作为环境污染民事责任的抗辩事由

本文分析了第三人过错是过错责任侵权案件的抗辩事由,全面梳理了第三人过错在我国环境立法中的地位演变,并就第三人过错是否为环境污染民事责任抗辩事由的理论争议进行了深入的述评。提出在以后修改《海洋环境保护法》及《水污染防治法》,甚至制定专门的环境侵权责任法时,除了明确规定在所有环境污染领域第三人过错都不是抗辩事由外,还需合理地设置第三人过错污染环境民事责任的追究机制和社会化救济机制。     

论医疗损害责任抗辩事由及其法律完善

《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第60条规定了医疗损害责任的抗辩事由,但法律规定不够完善,难以完全应对实践需要。因此,需要对第60条进行法律解释,并需丰富医疗损害责任抗辩事由体系,增加规定无因管理、医疗特权、意外事件、自甘冒险、损益相抵和并发症等抗辩事由。此外,结合我国医疗卫生事业体制和医学科学特点以及比较法的经验,应适当限制医疗损害责任赔偿。     

Discerning Immunity for Governmental Entities: Analyzing Legislative Choices

In 2006, three disagreements about the scope of immunity for governmental entities were considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Governmental entities were seeking to avoid liability for their actions, claiming the defense of sovereign immunity. Other lawsuits involving governmental immunity under state constitutional and statutory provisions disclose controversies concerning the responsibilities of governments to injured persons. The complicated jurisprudence governing immunity for governmental entities shows two alternatives for legislatures. They have the ability to increase liability by waiving immunity or to add defenses that defeat liability. The trend seems to be to waive immunity for governmental entities while adding statutory defenses that are available to both the private sector and governmental entities.     

Takeover Defenses’ Influence on Managerial Incentives

This article examines how takeover defenses influence managerial incentives with respect to long-term investments, excess liquidity and capital structure. The article presents a cross-sectional regression based on a sample of listed Danish firms and deals explicitly with the problem of causation between the variables. Takeover defenses adopted by Danish firms mainly consist of shares with dual class voting rights, which are often combined with foundation ownership. The article finds that protected firms have significantly less debt to equity. However, protected firms are not significantly more oriented towards the long-term and do not have significantly more excess liquidity.     

当前中国《侵权法(草案)》之比较研究

当下的《侵权法》立法准备工作,只能在已有《草案》的基础上继续前进而不能推倒重来,故对比研究这些《草案》的内容并提出完善方案具有重要意义。我国学者对侵权法归责原则存在不同观点,《草案》规定亦仁智互现,将来立法应确立过错责任原则与无过错责任原则。过错推定是过错的认定方法,不是独立的归责原则;公平作为法律价值,既是过错责任与无过错责任确立的基础,又是特殊情况下的损失分摊规则,但并非归责原则。针对具体的侵权责任方式,应适用不同的归责原则,即适用赔礼道歉或赔偿损失的侵权责任方式的,须以责任人的过错为条件;而适用其他侵权责任方式的,不以责任人的过错为条件。应当法定化的抗辩事由包括不可抗力、依法行使权利或执行职务、正当防卫、紧急避险、自助行为、受害人同意、受害人过错、第三人原因。不可抗力是一般侵权责任的免责事由,但能否作为特殊侵权责任的免责事由,则应分别而论。受害人过错规则的适用范围应适当扩大,以涵盖"监护人过错"及"受害人方面的原因"。《侵权法》是"保护法",故侵权责任方式不仅包括损害赔偿,还包括其他方式;但"消除影响"、"恢复名誉"不宜与"赔礼道歉"并列、"修理"不宜与"恢复原状"并列为侵权责任形式,"重做"、"更换"是违约责任形式,而非侵权责任形式。应当将危险物品和危险作业进行区分后各自设置相关规则。物致害责任均为无过错责任,责任人为物的实际管领者。侵权法上的动物致害,应当既包括饲养动物又包括野生动物。损害赔偿的趋势之一是在特殊领域承认惩罚性赔偿,侵权法在产品责任领域可以引进惩罚性赔偿制度,但惩罚性赔偿金额应限制在实际损失的两倍范围之内。     

晚近ICSID仲裁庭管辖权裁决的实证考察——兼谈我国首次被申诉案件的管辖权抗辩

近年来，ICSID仲裁庭管辖权裁决出现平稳增加的趋势。管辖权是ICSID仲裁庭得以作出有效裁决的基石，投资者和东道国也往往在进入实体争议之前首先就管辖权问题争锋相对。通过对近十年来ICSID仲裁庭的管辖权裁决进行分析，特别是结合公约内容中相关要件的规定，管辖权裁决的特征和趋势逐渐显露。考察晚近ICSID仲裁庭管辖权裁决，有助于分析ICSID仲裁庭自身的运作机制，积累实践案例经验，对于我国首次作为被申诉方参与ICSID进行管辖权抗辩也具有较强的启示作用。     

CHOOSE TO HUG,NOT HIT*

This article discusses reasonable chastisement of children as a defense by parents to assault charges. It suggests that its continued retention contravenes the rights of children and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It compares developments in various countries, such as the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, where the defense has been abolished, as compared with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, where it has been retained. It suggests that its continued retention encourages bullying and violence in schools and in later adult life.     

论外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题

我国关于外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题的立法及司法实践都仍存在一些不足。对于外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题,国际上主要有以下解决办法:推定外国法与法院地法相同并适用法院地法;法院地法作为辅助性准据法;驳回当事人的诉讼请求和抗辩;适用与本来应适用的法律相类似的外国法;适用辅助性连结点再次选择准据法;适用与当事人有最密切联系的国家的法律;适用一般法律原则。我国应借鉴他国法律规定的合理成分,在直接适用法院地法的做法上补之以适用与该外国法相类似的法律和与当事人有最密切联系的国家的法律以及一般法律原则作为选择。     

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。