钱塘江畔论“道”新版《建设工程施工合同（示范文本）》修订研讨会侧记

很多人看中国的变化是从城市开始的：高楼林立、高速路开通、立交桥层叠；建筑工人逢山开路、遇水架桥……中国虽然宛如一个大工地，却呈现出勃勃生机。     

浅谈举报人保护

改革开放是新中国的一项重要举措，使中国的经济发展有了巨大的进步，但同时也给中国带来了巨大的文化冲击，资本主义的腐朽一面对中国人的世界观，人生观带来了相当大的负面影响，拜金主义开始弥漫，中国人的道德底线受到一次又一次；中击，犯罪率一时间快速升高。这一切造成中国在发展经济的同时，开始了减少犯罪的艰苦战斗。     

发展权的促进和保护：中国的实践

发展权是20世纪70年代以後逐步形成的新一代人权．发展权提出之时，正是中国思考和寻找自身发展道路之时；发展权确立之时，正是中国实行改革开放和开始走自身特色发展道路之时；发展权在国际范围内逐步得到促进和保护之时．正是中国经济快速发展和社会全面进步之时。时值《世界人权宣言》发表60周年和中国实行改革开放30周年之际．回顾中国促进和保护发展权的历程．对於中国迎接挑战和实现又好又快发展十分必要。     

论十七世纪中西法律冲突

本文用历史比较的方法论述十七世纪中国法律与西方法律的冲突及其原因。中国法律文化的近代化是在西方法律文化的冲击和影响之下进行的；西方法律文化与中国的接触在鸦片战争之前的一百多年里就已经陆续产生并具有较大影响；从比较中看，十七世纪开始产生的中西法律冲突同时带有双重性质：近代法律与封建专制法律的冲突、殖民主义与反殖民主义的冲突。本文还进一步分析了十七世纪西方与中国法律文化发展进程差异的历史渊源     

加入WTO对中国律师及律师所的影响

1999年11月中美达成关于中国加入WTO的双边协议，随后中国与欧盟等世贸组织重要成员的入世谈判也取得了实质性进展，自2000年-2001年间中国入世谈判加紧进行，特别是2001年1月10日中国加入世贸组织的谈判在瑞士重新开始，6月4日中美就中国加入世贸组织所遗留问题的解决达成全面共识；6月20日中国与欧盟     

中国宪政之路若干反思

清末开始仿照西方立宪，到20世纪末已近百年。其具体路径是以国家为主导、以激进革命的方式推动宪政实践；脆弱的社会基础不能支持宪政；宪政发展模式上或盲目移植或自我封闭；中国宪政的主导思想是重理性主义而轻经验自由主义。这些就是百年宪政之路提供给我们的历史资源。当中国进行市场经济体制建立时，又一次面临宪政道路的探索，反思一个世纪以来的宪政经验，具有重要意义。     

外资银行准入的法律环境

一、中国银行业开放的历史１９７９年１２月５日，中国开始迈出对外开放银行业的第一步，日本进出口银行成为获准在北京设立代表处的第一家外资银行。自此，中国对外资银行开放的范围逐渐扩大，对外资银行的限制逐渐放松。外资银行无论在服务区域和营业机构数量的发展、业务量的增加、业务范围和服务对象的拓展等方面均取得长足的发展。从过去的二十几年来看，银行业开放的发展过程呈阶段性特征。第一阶段：１９７９年，开始允许外国金融机构在中国设立代表处，拉开了中国银行业对外开放的序幕；第二阶段：１９８１—１９８９年，开始引进营…     

产业链的新资本整合

近年来，中国安防行业资本故事层出不穷，最具代表性的当属2007年CSST在美国成功转板上市，使得中国安防企业的发展模式和思维角度发生了根本性变化。@@ 随着CSST完成第一阶段的上市目标，其业务架构基本形成雏形，在产品制造、销售、运营服务、职业培训等方面有序展开；随后，CSST又在工程集成商、消防等环节做了系列动作；目前则开始进入物联网领域，预计会有新的资本故事要发生。@@ CSST在实现自身资本运作的同时，为中国安防行业带来的是资本的启迪。此后，越来越多的企业则开始“密谋”在国际或国内资本市场上市。     

当法律遭遇文化习俗

中国有句俗语，叫“烟酒不分家”。可今年的这个“五一”小长假，广大烟酒爱好者过得就比较纠结。从5月1日起，《刑法修正案（八）》和修改后的《道路交通安全法》开始施行，醉酒驾驶机动车将被追究刑责；而卫生部的《公共场所卫生管理条例实施细则》关于室内公共场所取消吸烟区的规定开始生效，意味着室内公共场所开始禁烟了。     

科举“出猫”榜

历史博物馆的“清代科举展览”，最好看的展品有三件：一是光绪三十年的大金榜，即皇榜，也是中国最后一届科举发榜；末代功名，见之令人感慨；二是乾隆九年（1744年）甲子科乡试首场夹带案犯一览表，其实就是一张“出猫”给人逮住的罪犯名单，看了也很感叹，开始明白夹带的意思；     

最高法院关於买卖合同案件的司法解释对国际货物销售的影响

中国的货物销售法是由一组规范性法律文件构成。这些文件中,民法通则和合同法是基本的法律,最高人民法院关於这两部法律的司法解释为补充。合同法实施後,最高人民法院公布了《关於适用〈中华人民共和国合同法〉若干问题的解释（一）》（1999年）、《关於适用（中华人民共和国合同法）若干问题的解释（二）》（2009年）、《关於审理商品房买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（2003年）、     

The 2007 Interpretation of the Supreme Court of China on contractual choice of law: Comments and analysis

On July 23, 2007, the Supreme Court of China issued a new judicial interpretation on contractual conflicts. By this Interpretation, the Supreme Court of China publicized contractual conflicts rules. Although a new legal system has been established in resolving conflict of laws in accord with the Law on the Application of Law in Foreign-Related Civil Relations in China (effective on April 1, 2011), there are not many detailed rules concerned on contractual choice of law in this law. As far as contractual conflicts are concerned, the new rules just re-confirm the principles embedded in the 2007 Interpretation. In China contractual conflict disputes still have to largely resort to the 2007 Interpretation.     

最高人民法院裁判、司法解释的法律地位

The decisions and the legislative interpretations of judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court of China can be considered as a part of Mainland China’s customary law, and carried by decisions and judicial interpretations. Customary law is the very source of its normal force and they are supposed to be an informal source of the law for they have the required characteristics for substantiating customary law. Accordingly, the legislative judicial interpretations and decisions of the Supreme Court that are qualified to be promulgated in the Gazette of the Supreme Court should be standardized by the requisites of customary law and have the quality supposed to be universally fair. Cao Shibing is a senior judge of the Supreme Court of China majoring in civil law, and he was awarded the doctorate of law by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Till now, he has published an amount of academic works, for instance, On Anti-monopoly Law (1996), Resolve of the Problems in the Suretyship Law of China and its Prospect (2001), On Insolvency Law of China (2003), and his translated book in Chinese (1998) —The Death of Contract (originally written by Grant Gilmore in 1995).     

为最高人民法院司法解释权一辩

尽管最高人民法院的司法解释工作尚存在各种不足,然而我们更应该看到其对于我国法制建设与司法实践的积极意义。最高人民法院司法解释权的正当性可以从实在法和学理两个方面得到辩护。要推进我国的司法解释制度,就要在肯定最高人民法院司法解释权之正当性的基础上,对该制度的另一些重要问题展开进一步研究。     

最高法院对外国法适用的上诉审查

最高法院位于一国司法体系的顶端,同时负有上诉终审裁判功能和发展法律的功能.最高法院是否应对外国法的错误适用进行上诉审查,各国实践和理论分歧甚大,从中可以概括出三种基本模式:拒绝审查模式、有限审查模式和全面审查模式.从最高法院的上诉裁判功能出发,为落实当事人的上诉救济权利,尤其是在我国二审终审和法官对外国法的查明和确定拥有主导权的语境下,最高法院应对外国法的错误适用进行上诉审查.外国法的适用与本国法律体系的发展并不割裂,相反两者具有实质关联,最高法院从其发展法律的功能出发,也应主动审查下级法院对外国法的错误适用.最高法院解释和适用外国法,有助于增进本国法律体系的包容和开放的精神.     

Clarifying Maritime Criminal Cases Jurisdiction and its International Implications—Current Legal Developments in China

Crime, Law and Social Change - On 20 February 2020, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the China Coast Guard jointly issued the Notice on Issues...     

死刑控制与最高人民法院的功能定位

死刑控制与最高人民法院的关系是社会各界关注的热点问题。分析表明,2007年以来最高人民法院全面收回死刑复核权,对其自身造成了一系列影响;最高人民法院的内部结构与实际功能,由此发生了深刻变化。这些变化并不完全符合现代法治理念下最高人民法院的功能定位。未来应该在考虑政治与社会条件的基础上,有步骤地改造最高人民法院在死刑控制方面的工作职能与方式,以减轻最高人民法院不必要的工作负担与资源消耗,促进最高人民法院将更多的资源用于应对更加宏观、复杂的问题。     

From Hyderabad to Harvard: how US law schools make it worthwhile to clerk on India's Supreme Court

Since the 1990s, judges of the Supreme Court of India have hired law clerks to help them perform some of their routine tasks. However, while clerkships on the U.S. Supreme Court are considered very prestigious and are extensively written about, clerkships on India's Supreme Court are considered to be of significantly lower value by the local legal profession and teaching market in India. Instead, ironically, clerkships on the Supreme Court of India are often pursued by students interested in getting an advanced law degree (usually an LL.M.) at a U.S. law school. Relying on interviews conducted with law clerks and interns who have served on the Supreme Court of India, and using India as a case study, this paper argues that ambitious Indian law students are adopting strategies to “Americanize” themselves in order to culturally arbitrage U.S. law schools' misunderstandings of the global legal profession.     

Court Order No. 3, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,March 18, 1963

Having heard and discussed the reports of the Chairman of the RSFSR Supreme Court, Comrade L. N. Smirnov, the Chairman of the Lithuanian Supreme Court, Comrade A. L. Likas, and the Chairman of the Criminal College of the USSR Supreme Court, Comrade G. Z. Anashkin, on the fulfillment by the judiciary of the USSR Supreme Court Plenum's Order No. 6 of September 12, 1961, and having examined materials summarizing the practice of the courts in cases involving antisocial parasitic elements, the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court takes note that the judiciary of the RSFSR, Lithuania and other union republics have recently somewhat improved their consideration of such cases, and have begun to apply more correctly the legislation on intensifying the struggle against persons refraining from socially useful labor and engaging in an antisocial and parasitic way of life.     

The “Waiver of Right” Issue in Chinese Civil Claims for War Reparations from Japan—Review of the Two Judgments of the Supreme Court of Japan on April 27, 2007 —Review of the Two Judgments of the Supreme Court of Japan on April 27, 2007

It is still a hot debate: Does China still have the rights to civil claims for war reparations from Japan in spite of its signature of the Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué of 1972? The Supreme Court of Japan has recently made a number of relevant judgments on this issue, which have cited several specific reasons and have touched on the principles of customary international law and the officially disclosed negotiation documents on the normalization of China-Japan diplomatic ties. This paper is a response to the reasons cited by the Supreme Court of Japan, which analyses the controlling doctrines and issues involved in this debate, including the Framework of Peace Treaty of San Francisco with Japan, the legal effect of the Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué and its relationship with the Peace Treaty between Japan and Taiwan (China). Through this analysis, this paper reaches the conclusion that the Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué does not waive the civil claims of China for war reparation.