论中外合作经营企业先行回收投资的法律性质

论中外合作经营企业先行回收投资的法律性质谢晓尧刘恒外国合作者先行回收投资是中外合作经营企业（以下简称合作企业）中较为普遍的做法，也是《中华人民共和国中外合作经营企业法》（以下简称《合作企业法》）独具特色的一项法律制度。如何认识先行回收投资的性质，理论...     

中外合作经营企业外国合作者先行回收投资审批办法

第一条为规范中外合作经营企业外国合作者先行回收投资(以下简称“先行回收投资”)的审批工作,根据《中华人民共和国中外合作经营企业法》、《中华人民共和国行政许可法》以及《中华人民共和国中外合作经营企业法实施细则》的有关规定,制定本办法。第二条在中华人民共和国境内设立的中外合作经营企业外国合作者先行回收投资的相关事项适用本办法。第三条本办法所称的先行回收投资,是指中外合作经营企业(以下简称“合作企业”)中的外国合作者按照法律规定以及合同的约定,以     

合作企业外商先行回收投资三议

<正> 一个企业,在其经营期间,一般是不允许其投资者抽回其投资的。但我国从1979年办起第一个合作企业——广东省宝安县光明畜牧场畔湖养鸭场以来,90％以上的合作企业都允许外商在合作期限内先行回收其投资。《中华人民共和国中外合作经营企业法》(下称“合作企业法”)第22条对此也作了肯定。这种做法,是我国在利用外国直接投资中的一种创造。那么,外商在合作期限内先行回收投资属于什么样的法律性质呢? 当前,外商在合作期限内先行回收投资的途径,主要有两种,一是合作前期提     

中外合作企业外资先行回收法律问题研究

外方资本的先行回收是合作经营企业资本方面的一大特色,同时也是一项重要的法律问题。它是指在合作企业开始生产经营并盈利后,在收益分配中按照合同中约定的比例,由外方先分、多分利润,直至外方收回其投资原本的做法,其目的在于降低外商投资的风险,保证外商能够保本获利。这种做法源于实践,受到外商的欢迎,是合作企业发展迅速的重要因素之一,现已成为合作企业的通行做法。但这种做法虽在实践中得到     

对“三资”企业犯罪主客体的探讨

“三资”企业中的中外合资、中外合作经营企业,当外方是外国公司,企业和其他经济组织或个人,而中方是全民所有制或集体所有制企业时,其合资合作企业的财产属性,是一种混合所有制的形式。反映在法律上便形成法人所有权。该所有权是否可以认定为公共财产?当中外合资、合作企业的法人财产被其内部工作人员利用职务之便贪污时,是否适用以贪污罪定罪量刑?笔者认为:严格地说,这种混合所有制企业中的法人财     

论中外合作经营企业的法律性质及法律特征

国际投资企业形式包括股权式合营企业和契约式合营企业两种。从中外合作经营企业产生的背景分析，它是在中国具体国情中独创出来的一种企业形式，其法律性质在于它是对中外合资经营企业法的灵活变通，这种变通表现在其法律特征之中。中外合作经营企业各方权利义务虽不尽相同，但仍符合平等互利的法律原则和国际惯例。     

浅谈“三资”企业外方人员非法占有企业财产的刑事责任

我国实行改革开放以来,中外合资经营企业、中外合作经营企业、外国投资企业(以下简称“三资”企业)迅猛发展。“三资”企业中外国投资方工作人员和雇用的外国国籍的工作人员(以下简称外方工作人员)也在日益增多。他们中有相当一部分人经手、管理企业的财物,其中的个别人利用职务上的便利,侵吞、盗窃、骗取或用其他手段非法占有企业的公共财物的案件已屡有发生。目前,由于种种原因尚没有追究这部分人的刑事责任,贪污巨款的外方工作人员至今消遥法外。笔者认为,应当依据宪法和法律,对“三资”企业中外方工作人员非法占有企业财产构成犯罪的追究刑事责任,并通过完善立法,进一步加强对“三资”企业经济利益的法律保护。     

中外合作经营企业外商先行回收投资制度废止论

外商先行回收投资制度的法律性质应该界定为妥协式契合关系。妥协式契合关系实际上是一种不和谐的契合关系,是一种权益配置失衡的契合关系。这种契合关系与我国和谐社会建设的旋律相阻相背。我们应该用理性的态度,冷静地思考"外商先行回收投资制度"的废止。     

中外合营企业风险责任承担初探

中外合作经营企业(以下简称合作企业)若发生亏损或破产,应如何承担应负的风险责任?笔者认为,首先应分析合作企业之法律性质,然后才能弄清作为合作企业的投资(或提供合作条件)者的中外合作者将如何就合作企业债务对外承担责任及合作企业内部中外合作者之间应如何分担责任。     

中外合作经营企业风险责任承担初探

中外合作经营企业(以下简称合作企业)若发生亏损或破产,应如何承担其应负的风险责任?笔者认为,要探讨这一问题,首先应分析合作企业的法律性质,然后应当弄清楚,作为合作企业的投资(或提供合作条件)者的中外合作者应如何就合作企业债务对外(即对合作企业债权人)承担责任,以及合作企业内部中外合作者之间应如何分担责任。     

税收协定的国内适用——基于《企业所得税法》第58条的考察

《企业所得税法》第58条试图全面解决税收协定在国内适用的三个问题,即条约的国内法效力、适用方式和法律位阶。对于如何理解第58条中的"不同规定"与"办理",存在"绝对主权说"和"国际条约说"之争。虽然两种学说的理论依据和具体主张有所不同,但它们均以维护法律体系的纯粹性为最高目标。这两种学说并不符合中国的混合一元条约适用体制。当前,中国应采取更具实质主义导向的方法适用税收协定。     

The “Discourse” of International Law and Humanitarian Intervention

This essay analyzes the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” in the frame of international law in the second half of nineteenth century and identifies the ground of legitimation of this intervention in the violation of presumed universal laws of humanity. The analysis emphasizes the transformation of the paradigm of “humanitarian intervention” into the current doctrine of the “responsibility to protect,” which under the rubric of “responsibility” legitimizes limitations on a state's sovereignty in cases where the state fails to guarantee the protection of its own population. This reconstruction of the genealogy of “humanitarian intervention” illustrates the continual exceptions to the principle of nonintervention, which means that the Westphalian principle of sovereignty has always been violated. Both doctrines—humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect—can be considered “hegemonic techniques” that use so‐called universal concepts in order to legitimize unilateral power interests.     

行政拘留:被法治遗忘的角落

我国现行行政拘留制度在四个方面存在缺陷。行政拘留应当符合四大基本原则:人权保护原则;参与原则;司法审查原则和救济原则。在从价值观上实现由“形式法治主义”到“实质法治主义”转变的前提下,应当从四个方面对我国的行政拘留制度进行重构。     

消灭时效效力若干“通说”质疑

“通说”将消灭时效的效力分为实体权利消灭、诉权消灭和抗辩权发生三主义。然前二者是关于消灭时效标的主义,后者是关于消灭时效效力发生方式的主义,三者不可并列。“时效的效力”由“时效的标的”和“时效发生效力的方式”复合构成。前者有实体权利消灭、起诉权消灭和胜诉权消灭三主义,后者有权利直灭和抗辩权发生两主义。日、法、德民法典在时效发生效力的方式上均为抗辩权发生主义;但时效的标的则众说纷纭,几至混乱。     

The Rule of Law,Comprehensive Doctrines,Overlapping Consensus,and the Future of Europe

For more than a decade now a profound rule-of-law crisis has gripped the European Union, and while the fight for the rule of law has topped not only the academic but also the judicial and political agenda, the results have been disappointingly meagre. This article argues that the main reason for that should be sought in a political strategic move of justifying the assaults on the rule of law by resorting to an “illiberal democracy.” This premeditated political narrative shift has unleashed onto the political sphere and onto public discourse at large comprehensive doctrines which had hitherto been left dormant thanks to an overlapping consensus on the rule of law as a central building block of the political conception of justice à la Rawls. Once this overlapping consensus was broken, the rule of law itself lost its neutral character as a referee on the right among the many conceptions of the good, itself becoming part of the highly politicized power play for dominance among irreconcilable—liberal and illiberal—comprehensive doctrines. The overlapping consensus in the EU is thus broken, but there are no conceptual reasons inherent to the rule of law itself for which it could not be rebuilt in the future.     

“需要国家干预说”的法哲学分析

“需要国家干预说”是 20世纪中国经济法学最重要的学说之一。有限理性假设、国家适度干预、经济民主、社会公平、经济法治是其基本的法哲学叙事立场。国家是干预需要的满足者,“需要”是通过干预重建经济自由秩序的法律理由。国家超越市场利益关系对经济进行干预调节,国家干预由此构成经济法的基本哲学范畴与法理标志。经济宪政哲学是国家干预经济的法哲学进路,通过经济民主机制设定的干预才能避免经济专制,国家与社会成员共同分享经济权力才能保障干预的社会性与民主性,干预的达成并非一定为了公共,公共中的个体主义是结成公共的价值指引。     

Violence as unresponsiveness: Toward a new conception of crime

A theory of crime and violence as “unresponsiveness” was inferred by translating concepts of American criminology into Norwegian. According to this theory, punishment of offenders is a product of a criminality that the punishers share. Reducing crime and violence entails decentralizing and democratizing government. The practice of criminology—testing propositions about crime and violence—becomes problematic.     

宋格初探

宋初,编敕为最主要、最经常的立法形式,格的地位及作用明显衰微。神宗元丰以后,对格的编订又明显增加,其编纂体例等也有变化。这一变化的原因,是神宗对编敕、令、格、式的性质作重新界定,使格的性质发生显著变化:格完全行政法化,成为令的实施细则。格的性质的变化,其内在原因是编敕的刑法化。由于宋格成为令的实施细则,原为令的实施细则及公文程式的式则成为纯粹的公文程式。由于编敕、格性质及立法功能的变化,使得宋朝的立法模式也发生变化,即由宋初主要通过编敕进行立法的模式,变成对敕、令、格、式统一编订的立法模式。     

Accountability for Private Military and Security Contractors in the International Legal Regime

Abstract

The rapidly growing presence of private military and security contractors (PMSCs) in armed conflict and post-conflict situations in the last decade brought corresponding incidents of serious misconduct by PMSC personnel. The two most infamous events—one involving the firm formerly known as Blackwater and the other involving Titan and CACI—engendered scrutiny of available mechanisms for criminal and civil accountability of the individuals whose misconduct caused the harm. Along a parallel track, scholars and policymakers began examining the responsibility of states and international organizations for the harm that occurred. Both approaches have primarily focused on post-conduct accountability—of the individuals who caused the harm, of the state in which the harm occurred, or of the state or organization that hired the PMSC whose personnel caused the harm. Less attention, however, has been paid to the idea of pre-conduct accountability for PMSCs and their personnel. A broad understanding of “accountability for” PMSCs and their personnel encompasses not only responsibility for harm caused by conduct, but responsibility for hiring, hosting, and monitoring these entities, as well as responsibility to the victims of the harm. This article provides a comprehensive approach for analyzing the existing international legal regime, and whether and to what extent the legal regime provides “accountability for” PMSCs and their personnel. It does so by proposing a practical construct of three phases based on PMSC operations—Contracting, In-the-Field, and Post-Conduct—with which to assess the various bodies of international law.     

Philosophy in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Mahābhārata</Emphasis> and the History of Indian Philosophy

The study of philosophical terms and doctrines in the Mahābhārata touches not only on important aspects of the contents, composition and the historical contexts of the epic, but also on the historiography of Indian philosophy. General ideas about the textual history of the epic and the distinction between “didactic” and “narrative” parts have influenced the study of epic philosophy no less than academic discussions about what is philosophy in India and how it developed. This results in different evaluations of the place of philosophical texts in the epic and their relationship to the history of Indian philosophy. While some scholars have suggested that there is a “philosophy of the epic” its composers wished to propagate, others have argued that “philosophy” is included in the epic either in a “proto” form or in a variety of doctrines (often presented is “mixed” or “unsystematic” ways) they deemed relevant. The article discusses these views and some of the heuristic assumptions on which they are based. It proposes to widen the scope of analysis by paying more attention to the interplay of narrative and didactic passages, the various ways in which philosophy is presented in the epic, and its connection to a larger spectrum of the reception of philosophy in textual genres and by audiences outside the expert circles of the philosophical schools.