论美国法上的“禁止报复性解雇”规则

雇佣自由原则是调整美国不定期雇佣关系的基本准则，其对美国经济运行活力、效率与竞争力的支撑作用不言而喻。但它又是建立在劳资地位不平等基础上的。随着资本积累的加剧，其内含的对劳方利益牺牲、对资方利益偏袒的弊端愈加明显。顺应效率与公平相协调、契约正义以及积极权利理念的兴起，联邦和州制定法上的举报人保护规则以及判例法上的公共政策例外规则逐渐确立，形成对雇主任意解雇权的限制。我国可借鉴美国立法、司法经验，构建起完善的禁止报复性解雇法律法规体系。司法实践中确立用人单位不仅负有“解雇正当理由”的证明责任，还要承担“解雇决定不存在报复性动机”的说服责任。这既有利于规范雇主的内部行为，落实企业社会责任，又有利于平衡雇员、雇主和社会的三方利益关系。     

行政规范性文件之民事司法适用

我国民事司法实践中,行政规范性文件是重要裁判说理依据。行政规范性文件民事司法适用之法理基础,在于其是我国规范等级体系的有机组成部分、是我国民法非正式法源,且在公私法融合的背景下,行政规范性文件也无可避免地需要适用于民事司法。行政规范性文件的民事司法适用分为法源与非法源意义上的适用。非法源意义上的适用,指行政规范性文件"为认定事实之依据"。法源意义上的民事司法适用规则,包括形式、实质、程序三个方面。     

公共政策在法院审判中的适用

近年来，为约束法官自由裁量权的行使，法院在司法实务中日益重视公共政策的运用，在个案审理、司法解释及司法建议中经常可以发现公共政策分析。从审判实践看，法院一方面对行政机关的政策判断采取尊重的立场，另一方面出于有效履行审判职能的考虑，坚持对公共政策的合法性进行审查。为减少公共政策适用中的负面性，法院应确立以下两个界限：不能背离法律规范的明确含义以及不可放弃法的基本价值。     

美国雇佣自由规则在判例法中的确立及启示

在修改《劳动合同法》呼声愈演愈烈的背景下,不少学者将目光投向美国雇佣自由规则。在目前主要的工业化国家中,仅有美国适用雇佣自由规则,其私人部门中的雇主一般可随时以任何理由解雇雇员。19世纪中期前,不同州的法院或同一州不同系统的法院或适用一年雇佣规则,或适用劳动报酬规则,或适用雇佣自由规则处理劳动争议。19世纪末20世纪初,雇佣自由规则在判例法中得以确立,是学术理论、法律制度、经济制度、社会观念、工会因素、司法体制综合作用之结果。借鉴美国经验可知,我国不宜适用过于宽松的解雇保护制度,应继续将稳定劳动关系作为主要价值目标,并遵循"社会公共利益>职业稳定权>经营管理权"之法益保护位阶。     

浅析国际商事仲裁中的公共政策制度

为了最大限度地统-世界各国对公共政策的认识和对外国仲裁裁决司法审查中:公共政策"的合理化,规范化适用,国际法协会、国际商事仲裁委员经过多次会议和两年多的讨论,于2002年4月会议纽在新德里讨论通过了<关于公共政策作为拒绝执行国际商事仲裁裁决的工具的最终报告>.委员会已就各国法院适用"公共政策"达成了一些建议.最终报告阐述了这些建议并对每条建议提供了简短的评论.     

我国承认和执行国际商事仲裁裁决中公共政策的运用

公共政策是一国法院用于拒绝承认和执行国际商事仲裁裁决的一项重要法律制度。本文从我国的立法、司法实践出发,提出了我国适用公共政策的具体标准,以便我国能够在国际商事仲裁裁决的承认和执行中更好、更合理地运用公共政策。     

从永宁公司案看公共政策作为我国法院拒绝执行外国仲裁裁决的理由

通过分析国内外有关公共政策的立法与实践,特别是我国法院拒绝承认与执行国际商会国际仲裁院仲裁庭就永宁公司案作出的裁决,从中显示在承认与执行外国仲裁裁决领域,公共政策的实质在于限制外国仲裁裁决的承认与执行。包括《纽约公约》在内的国内外立法对公共政策均未作出明确的定义,在各国有关国际商事仲裁的司法实践中,法院一般不轻易动用公共政策作为拒绝执行仲裁裁决的理由,凡是能够将拒绝承认与执行外国裁决的理由归咎于公共政策以外的其他理由时,应当援引其他理由,只有在极为特殊情况下法院才援引公共政策的条款。ICC仲裁庭就永宁公司案作出的裁决之所以被我国法院以裁决违反了我国的社会公共利益而拒绝执行,归根到底是该裁决无视我国现行法律规定,侵犯了按照我国现行法律规定专属于我国法院的司法管辖权。     

著作权合理使用的类型化

普遍认为,为适应作品使用的复杂情形,我国《著作权法》第三次修订时应规定合理使用的一般条款。但是,合理使用一般条款的法律适用存在不可预测等局限性。提供详尽的例外清单不仅是大陆法系著作权法传统的延续,也是克服一般条款局限性的内在需要。不同类型的例外清单得到了不同公共政策的支持。依据明确得以承认的公共政策,我国法院不仅对《著作权法》第22条予以扩张或限缩解释,还确认了信息获取、竞争自由、技术发展和促进创作等合理使用的新类型。类型化的研究既为相关立法提供了理论支持,也为司法适用提供了可预期的解释工具。《著作权法》第三次修订案应将这些新类型法定化。     

论《民法总则》中习惯的司法适用

《民法总则》第10条承认了习惯的法源地位,这里的“习惯”应定位为习惯法,而非事实上习惯.习惯法有其具体的适用条件,即法律规定存在真正漏洞、待调整事项存在习惯法规则、习惯法规则不违背公序良俗原则和制定法.习惯司法适用的逻辑终点是法院在个案中确认习惯法规则,经个案积累形成习惯法,最终还可能引发习惯立法.习惯立法意味着习惯法法源地位的消失.《民法总则》生效后,我国应沿着事实上习惯——个案中的习惯法规则——习惯法——习惯立法的进路,通过习惯的司法适用发现习惯法.     

反不正当竞争法与知识产权法关系的司法政策的教义学展开

最高人民法院出台的有关反不正当竞争法与知识产权法关系的司法政策可化约为一项法律规则,授权法院在一定条件下援引反不正当竞争法为知识产权提供附加保护。这项政策的适用难点在于其适用条件。该政策的一阶适用条件为,知识产权法未予禁止的情形构成法律漏洞并且立法者未禁止法院填补漏洞。可是,存在一些阻却漏洞认定或填补的知识产权法律规则。只有为阻却漏洞认定或填补的规则设立例外,一阶适用条件才能成立。而为阻却漏洞认定或填补的规则设立例外以法院拥有对这些规则的续造权为前提。法院的续造权因此构成二阶适用条件。按我国国家机构权力配置的标准,法院应享有续造权。法院行使续造权应受论证负担规则的限制。     

Campaigning for the Bench: The Corrosive Effects of Campaign Speech?

A new era has emerged in the ways in which candidates for state judicial office campaign. In the past, judicial elections were largely devoid of policy content, with candidates typically touting their judicial experience and other preparation for serving as a judge. Today, in many if not most states, such campaigns are relics of the past. Modern judicial campaigns have adopted many of the practices of candidates for other types of political office, including soliciting campaign contributions, using attack ads, and even making promises about how they will decide issues if elected to the bench. Not surprisingly, this new style of judicial campaigning has caused considerable consternation among observers of the courts, with many fearing that such activity will undermine the very legitimacy of legal institutions. Such fears, however, are grounded in practically no rigorous empirical evidence on the effects of campaign activity on public evaluations of judicial institutions. The purpose of this article is to investigate the effects of campaign activity on the perceived legitimacy of courts. Using survey data drawn from Kentucky, I use both post hoc and experimental methods to assess whether public perceptions of courts are influenced by various sorts of campaign activity. In general, my findings are that different types of campaign activity have quite different consequences. For instance, policy pronouncements by candidates do not undermine judicial legitimacy, whereas policy promises do. Throughout the analysis, I compare perceptions of courts and legislatures, and often find that courts are far less unique than many ordinarily assume. I conclude this article with a discussion of the implications of the findings for the contemporary debate over the use of elections to select judges to the high courts of many of the American states.     

保险法上的因果关系认定与司法推理——以意外死亡保险为例

保险法上的因果关系认定,其目的在于界定保险人的赔付责任范围,其背景是保险合同已对保险人的承保范围和除外责任都做出了规定。事实上,在保险案件中,法院在认定因果关系时,往往已融入了对保险合同条款的价值判断。在意外死亡保险中,有关因果关系认定的司法实践充分说明了这一点。在当代社会,法院在认定保险法上的因果关系时,应遵循保护被保险人的合理期待的原则。     

知识产权法官造法批判

中国部分法院在知识产权领域利用民法或其它法律的原则条款扩充知识产权的保护范围,破坏了知识产权法的利益平衡机制。本文对此类司法活动进行批评,希望重新确立知识产权法定原则在中国司法活动中的统治地位。法院在司法活动中应该放弃个人本位的自然权学说,坚持社会本位的功利主义思想,坚持知识产权法的独占适用,保证立法政策得到贯彻。     

Party autonomy in the choice of law under Indian and Australian private international law: some reciprocal lessons

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic will affect the performance of several contracts and is likely to increase the number of disputes before the courts. In agreements with a foreign element, the adjudication of the rights and liabilities will depend on the applicable law. Most legal systems have embraced the doctrine of party autonomy and, accordingly, permit the parties to expressly select the law to govern the disputes that arise from international contracts. India and Australia are no exception to this trend. In general, the courts in both the commonwealth countries have reported having been influenced by judicial practices of one another to develop their own law. Despite their common law roots, the interpretations attached to the doctrine of party autonomy in the choice of law have varied in some respects in these countries. The paper analyses the judicial trends on the subject and demonstrates the role that party autonomy will play in resolving international disputes where the performance has been affected by the eventualities such as the COVID-19 pandemic in India and Australia. The paper delves into the manner in which the courts in India and Australia may offer reciprocal lessons to each another to revolutionise to interpret the doctrine of party autonomy in the choice of law.     

Judicial authority through the experiences of crisis

This article is concerned with law’s experiences and making sense of crisis. When we talk about law’s response to crisis, we refer to law not as an abstract set of rules but as an embodied and animated assemblage of relations and practices. This way, law needs to make sense of any crisis to respond to it. The article draws on cultural legal studies to explore the constitution of judicial authority in the context of a democracy in flux. The article relies on fieldwork data collected in the interviews conducted by the author with Lithuanian judges in 2019. Highest in more than two decades, public trust in the judiciary in 2018 indicated a remarkable achievement for Lithuania, a country whose judicial system had been in a state of flux since the end of the Soviet era. However, after an unprecedented and highly mediated judicial corruption scandal in 2019, the rates of public trust plummeted, uncovering complex dynamics between the image of courts, mass media, and the public. Against this backdrop, the article explores how judges make sense of crisis that develops on the intersections of provocative reality judging and formal judicial institutions. It shows how judicial authority is constituted in the conditions of crisis on the tension between law and culture. Emerging from a crisis of authority is the changing face of judging. A post-colonial vantage point and theatrical jurisprudence are used to respond to a development of a desire of power under a mask of rationality, objectivity, and universality. The article concludes by contemplating how this authority shapes our lifeworlds.

     

中国职务发明纠纷多元解决机制探究

中国职务发明数量的增长以及职务发明纠纷的增加引起了各界的广泛关注,如何构建有效的纠纷解决机制成为了一个十分重要的议题.通过分析以德国和法国为代表的大陆法系国家以及以美国和英国为代表的英美法系国家的相关纠纷解决机制,并将其与中国当前实践进行比较,(本文认为)有效的纠纷解决机制应致力于两方面努力.一方面,在设有知识产权法院的城市设立解决职务发明纠纷的专门委员会来专门处理职务发明纠纷.另一方面,在实体和程序上协同调解、仲裁及诉讼程序,从而使这些机制能够共同实现职务发明纠纷的有效解决.在参照《专利法》第四次修改内容和《专利纠纷行政调解指南》的基础上,将中国实践中的各种职务发明纠纷解决机制相协调,这有利于激励科技创新,平衡雇主与雇员的利益,进而有助于将中国建设成为创新型国家.     

司法解释的建构理念分析以商事司法解释为例

在当前的司法解释形成过程中,存在一些值得注意的制度建构理念与方式,如过多地基于推理启动具体的司法解释形成过程,先创设"立法政策"然后顺此制定司法解释,试图通过司法解释实现社会利益一般调整却超越其本身的权限与能力等等。这些做法影响具体司法解释的制度生长趋向与内容选择,并导致司法解释的定位逾矩与功能紊乱。为完善司法解释形成机制以确保司法解释优化质量,须强调基于审判经验启动具体的司法解释的形成过程,以顺应立法政策作为具体司法解释的政策取向原则,以实现法律的技术完善作为具体司法解释的建构重心。     

Lowering the Bar: Privileged Court Filings as Substitutes for Press Releases in the Court of Public Opinion

In the civil lawsuit against Kobe Bryant for sexual assault, the judge admonished lawyers for engaging in “public relations litigation”—the use of pleadings to attract media attention and try cases in the court of public opinion. This article examines the legal ramifications of such practices and the doctrines of law that encourage some lawyers and litigants to use pleadings as a form of press release. These include the law of republication and the fair report and judicial privileges as well as the power of judges to gag trial participants. The article concludes that courts have adequate tools to control such practices, and lawyers and public relations professionals can responsibly use court documents to communicate with the public, so long as they do not abuse the judicial process.