The US Supreme Court Affirms the Filartiga Paradigm

In 2004, for the first time in history, the United States SupremeCourt addressed the meaning and scope of the Alien Tort Statute(ATS) of 1789. Originally intended to provide redress for actsof piracy or offences against ambassadors, the Statute has beenused since the 1980 watershed case of Filartiga v. Peña-Iralato award damages in civil trials in the United States to foreignvictims of, inter alia, torture, summary execution and forceddisappearance. Opponents have claimed, among other things, thatuse of the ATS shows disregard for principles of internationalcomity; is inconsistent with principles governing the use ofuniversal jurisdiction; and results in an imperialist Americanprivatization of human rights. The author argues that the SupremeCourt's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain limits the ATS toa tool of complementary justice consistent with prevailing principlesof global accountability.     

论美国联邦最高法院宪法解释的创造性

美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释具有创造性,其主要表现在司法审查权、三重审查标准、选择性吸收理论、推翻先例和创造新的公民权利等五个方面。原旨主义和非原旨主义都会达至具有创造性的宪法解释,原旨主义具有天然的民主合法性,有时美国联邦最高法院会以原旨主义来掩饰它们具有创造性的宪法解释。宪法解释的创造性是一把双刃剑,有积极性的一面也有消极性的一面。美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释曾经也将永远具有创造性,只有如此它才能为宪法提供与时俱进的新意义。     

Privacy rights in the classroom: Peer grading Supreme Court judgment 2002

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case of Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo that the practice of students grading each other's work and then calling out the marks does not violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 1974. The Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th Circuit). The judgment came in the case of a mother, Kristja Falvo, who objected to the practice of peer grading and recording in elementary schools. She felt that the practice was a violation of FERPA. Student grades, she argued, were an education record and should not be released to others in the class without a parent's permission. However, the Supreme Court ruled that such grades did not satisfy the definition of an 'education record' under FERPA. The judgment is significant. Teachers' organisations and bodies representing administrators welcomed the decision.     

美国联邦最高法院对Harper ＆ Row出版股份公司等诉Nation企业等侵犯版权案的判决

著作权(或版权)是指作者对其创作的文学、艺术和科学作品依法所享有的权利。关于著作权法或版权法为何要保护作者的这一权利的问题,学理上有不同的观点,其中以“激励说”最为引人注目。就目前世界各国著作权法的具体规定来看,“激励说”占有着相当重要的地位。依据这一学说,国家制定著作权法(或版权法)赋予作者对其独创作品在一定期限内享有垄断性或排他性的权利,其宗旨是促进本国的科技和文化事业的发展。也就是说,国家以法律保护作为手段,以期达到发展和繁荣本国文化事业之目的。因此,如何平衡作者的利益与社会的利益之间的矛盾,也就成了著作权法所无法回避的问题。毫无疑问,作者在创作过程中经过了艰苦的思维,付出了辛勤的汗水,甚至投入了大量的资金,如果其所创作的作品得不到法律的有效保护,则作者的创造性劳动就难以得到回报,作者也就缺乏创作动力。由此看来,对作品加以保护是必要的。然而,作者的所谓“独创”是在前人留下的基础上进行的,那种不依赖前人所积累的知识而进行的抽象的创作是不存在的,也是不可能的。所以,为了社会的利益,为了鼓励更多的作品的创作,并降低创作成本,从而有利于知识的学习和传播,各国著作权法在对作者的著作权施加时间上的限制的同时又规定了对作品的合理使用。     

最高人民法院关于人民法院强制执行股权若干问题的规定(法释[2021]20号)

为了正确处理人民法院强制执行股权中的有关问题,维护当事人、利害关系人的合法权益,根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》《中华人民共和国公司法》等法律规定,结合执行工作实际,制定本规定。第一条本规定所称股权,包括有限责任公司股权、股份有限公司股份,但是在依法设立的证券交易所上市交易以及在国务院批准的其他全国性证券交易场所交易的股份有限公司股份除外。     

P2P软件提供者的帮助侵权责任——美国最高法院Grokster案判决评析

2005年6月27日,美国最高法院对争论已久的MGM Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd案做出了判决。最高法院清楚地指出:“索尼案”所确立的“实质性非侵权用途”标准不是判断法律责任的唯一依据;只要能够证明产品提供者具有引诱他人侵犯版权的意图,仍然可以认定“帮助侵权责任”。这样,自“分散式P2P技术”问世以来,围绕着P2P 软件提供者法律责任的争议终于划上了句号。而21年来有关“实质性非侵权用途”标准的适用范围也得到了最终的澄清。该判决是自1984年索尼案以来,影响面最广、也是最引人关注的判决之一。本刊在上期刊登了《“积极诱导规则”——从Grosker案看P2P侵权的新标准》一文后,本期继续推出《P2P软件提供者的帮助侵权责任——美国最高法院Grokster案判决评析》,该文更加全面的介绍该案的背景、影响、意义,希望有助于读者全面了解该案。     

Feminist theory confronts US Supreme Court rhetoric: the case of abortion rights

The research presented below analyses the rhetoric of abortion jurisprudence from the perspective of fundamental principles of feminist theory. While focused primarily on the American experience, it addresses and raises questions that are on the political agenda in a significant number of contemporary societies. The feminist principles identified, and against which judicial rhetoric is assessed, include: the importance of actual life experience over abstract principles, the significance of the distinction between the public and private realms and the understanding of society as a web of relationships. Demonstrated by the relevant data is that the decisions of the judiciary restrictive of reproductive choice are characterized by a distinctly non-feminist rhetoric.     

最高人民法院关于海事法院受理案件范围的若干规定

(2 0 0 1年 8月 9日最高人民法院审判委员会第 1 1 87次会议通过 ,2 0 0 1年 9月 1 8日起施行 )　　《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》已于 2 0 0 0年 7月 1日起施行。根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》、《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》、《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》以及我国参加和批准的有关国际公约 ,参照国际习惯做法 ,在总结我国海事审判实践经验的基础上 ,现将海事法院的收案范围规定如下 :一、海事侵权纠纷案件1.船舶碰撞损害赔偿案件 ,包括浪损等间接碰撞的损害赔偿纠纷案件。2 .船舶触碰海上、通海水域、港口及其岸上…     

Unincorporated software as idea: US Supreme Court limits extraterritorial effect of US patents for software inventions

The US Supreme Court has limited the extraterritorial effectof US patents for software inventions, reversing the previousexpansive interpretation of the Federal Circuit.     

US: Supreme Court adopts narrow definition of "disability" under anti-discrimination law

In January 2002, the US Supreme Court issued the latest in a series of court judgments adopting a narrow interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unanimous decision is fundamentally flawed in several important respects. It does not bode well for people with disabilities seeking protection from discrimination in employment.     

Union organizing drives dealt a blow by Supreme Court

The Lechmere case is important because it reaffirms that employers' property rights take precedence over the rights of nonemployees to engage in union organizing on employers' property. This is particularly important for hospitals and health care institutions because of their heightened exposure to union organizing activity after American Hospital Association v. National Labor Relations Board, discussed above. Providers should, however, remember two points. First, the principal focus of Lechmere was on union organizing by nonemployees; nothing in Lechmere limited the basic right of employees to form and join labor unions as guaranteed by Section 7 of the NLRA. Additionally, Lechmere notwithstanding, providers must be careful not to discriminate in their approach to union organizing activities--even by nonemployees. Thus, if a provider allows nonemployee groups other than unions to enter upon its property for purposes of soliciting employees and/or distributing literature, any attempt to bar nonemployee union organizers from the property would probably be deemed discriminatory and could indeed be an unfair labor practice. (In Lechmere, the employer consistently enforced a ban against all such nonemployee groups.)