论成年在校大学生对父母的抚养费请求权——兼论《婚姻法司法解释(一)》第20条的缺陷与完善

在司法实践中,对于在校成年大学生起诉父母索要抚养费的相似案件,不同法院的判决往往截然不同。主要原因在于《婚姻法司法解释(一)》第20条对"不能独立生活的子女"的规定存在缺陷。在《婚姻法》相关内容细化之前,有必要通过司法解释作出明确规定,一是明确"父母有给付能力"为成年子女请求父母给付抚养费的前提;二是细化对"不能独立生活的子女"的解释,甄别情况肯定或否定在校成年大学生对父母的抚养费请求权。     

论双方父母赠与夫妻的不动产之归属──对“《婚姻法》司法解释(三)征求意见稿”第8条第2款之我见

根据"《婚姻法》司法解释(三)征求意见稿"第8条第2款的规定,"双方父母赠与夫妻的不动产"被认定为按份共有。这既不符合我国现行《婚姻法》规定的"婚后所得共同制"之精神,也不符合我国的基本国情和《宪法》的基本精神,且不符合私法的价值取向。因此,它是不科学、不合理的,应当对其进行适当修改。     

《婚姻法解释（三）》中有关房产规定的争点问题探讨

婚后父母出资为子女购买不动产的权属界定和婚前一方贷款所购不动产离婚时的处理是《婚姻法解释（三）》所规定的两个引起较大关注和争议的问题。对这两个问题的处理,不能完全根据物权法的原理来作出规定,而应基于婚姻法的价值目标和立法目的,充分考虑到婚姻关系的身份性特征,做到＂法理＂与＂情理＂相结合,从而达到夫妻个人利益与婚姻家庭利益的均衡。     

生育权基本问题的探讨及其法律保护

关于生育权基本问题的争议很大,学界对生育权的性质、权属主体和权能更是众说纷纭。生育权应是自然人主体享有的生育的人身自由权,是自然人人格要素之一,属人格权范畴。自然人享有平等的生育权,但男女生育权并非同等,它们在权能和内容上存在差异。男女生育权共同的权能有生育选择权、生育信息知情权等,无“生育隐私权”权能,且生育选择权受到限制,是相对的选择权。女性生育权较男性生育权具有更多的可选择内容和更大的知情权范围。此外,女性生育权还独有生育健康权权能。生育权的法律保护有待完善,最高院《关于适用〈婚姻法〉若干问题的解释（三）》（征求意见稿）第十条需加修改。     

论夫妻一方婚前借款购置不动产的利益归属——对“《婚姻法》司法解释(三)征求意见稿”第11条的商榷

近年以来,离婚时夫妻一方婚前借款购置的不动产之归属争议越来越多,法学研究中对此类问题的认识分歧较大,各地人民法院对此类争议的裁判结果也不一致。根据"《婚姻法》司法解释(三)征求意见稿"第11条的规定,应考虑离婚时不动产的市场价格及共同清偿借款等因素,要求"不动产权利人对另一方进行合理补偿",具有相当大的合理性。但该规定可能存在重财产利益"清算"而轻人身关系特殊性的嫌疑,它可能因为对女性的弱势地位重视不足而不利于妇女。夫妻既是两个各自独立的利益主体,又是彼此紧密结合的共同生活伴侣。区分婚姻当事人双方的财产利益,不应当脱离婚姻的特殊性。处理这类不动产归属争议的司法裁判规则,宜根据不动产用途、财产来源、当事人对财产的贡献等因素,予以公平合理对待。     

本案适用修订后的《婚姻法》还是适用修订前的《婚姻法》--兼谈最高院对新修订《婚姻法》溯及力问题的解释

新修订的《婚姻法》是否具有溯及力问题直接影响到有关案件的处理结果。从最高院的司法解释来看,《婚姻法》的新修订部分具有溯及力。但法律是否具有溯及力应由法律本身作出明确规定,不能由司法解释来决定。我国《婚姻法》新修改部分的实施时间是明确的,并未规定有溯及力,最高院规定其有溯及力的司法解释违背了全国人大常委会《关于修改〈婚姻法〉的决定》,也不符合我国《立法法》的有关规定。     

事实婚姻的立法冲突及解决

事实婚姻不仅是婚姻法的调整对象,也是刑法认定重婚罪的重要基础。在法律规则和司法解释的具体展开上,刑法和婚姻法基于不同的立场从而有所不同,并最终导致在重婚罪的认定上产生冲突。刑法领域内的事实婚姻有其独特的含义,刑法领域内事实婚姻的推定有效和认定无效不同于婚姻法领域内的事实婚姻有效与无效,具有重婚罪构成要件的作用和意义。尊重多元的情感生活方式,公法和私法的融合与重整,都可以为事实婚姻在刑法和婚姻法上的冲突提供解决方案。     

伦理与婚姻法——评马克思《论〈离婚法草案〉》

马克思所著的法学著作涉及伦理问题的比较少,《论〈离婚法草案〉》是其中非常重要的一篇。在这篇文章中,马克思认为婚姻法必须合乎伦理,伦理是婚姻法的本质所在,是婚姻法存在的根本基础,婚姻法是社会认为必须以国家权力为后盾,以法律形式才能维护的婚姻伦理关系的上升。以青年马克思在《论〈离婚法草案〉》中所阐述的伦理与婚姻法思想观察我国现行婚姻法,我们会发现我国现行婚姻法与马克思理想中的婚姻法有许多一致性,可见马克思法律思想对我国法治建设仍然具有深刻影响,继续加强马克思法律思想研究有重要现实意义。     

对中国登记离婚制度的评价与反思

The Regulations on Marriage Registration promulgated in 2003 advocates the ideas for autonomy of private law, such as “autonomy of individual will”, “self responsibility” and “self-determination right”, ushering a new era of Chinese divorce registration system from supervision by employed institution to self responsibility, however, such issues also result in excessive freedom and insufficient restriction. In setting up the divorce registration system, therefore, it shall also be considered for the protection of disadvantaged parties and minor children so as to ensure the fairness and justice of law and the harmony and stability of society. Xia Yinlan, LL.D, is a professor and doctoral tutor and the dean of the School of International Studies in China University of Political Science and Law. She is also the vice chairman of Beijing Women’s Federation, the member of the executive committee of China Women’s Federation, the director of Marriage and Family Legal Research Institution under the supervision of China Law Society, the vice director of China Association of Marriage and Family Studies, the standing director of the International Family Law Society, the vice director of Beijing Women’s Law Research Institution. Her major academic interest covers women’s human rights, heritage law and family law. She was once a Fulbright visiting scholar in the United States and a legal expert in Macau Legal Affair Bureau. She’s one of the experts in drafting the P.R.C. Law on the Protection Of Women’s Rights (revised), the Marriage Law of P.R.C. (revised) and the Regulation of Marriage Registration of P.R.C., and she is still active in participating in the legislation activities of China. Prof. Xia wrote or co-wrote more than 20 monographs and textbooks, including American Modern Family and Marriage System, the Freedom and Restriction of Divorce, the Basic Framework Research on Domestic Violence Law, etc. In Chinese and foreign academic journals, more than 60 articles have been released, such as the study on property segmentation in divorce in China, the study on family violence under the framework of women’s rights, the comparison on the factual marriage in Macau and the Mainland of China.     

婚姻法修改及其完善

值此中华人民共和国民法典着手制定之际,本文拟考察2001年修正婚姻法的主要内容,评介其立法理由及成功之处,分析其存在的不足,并提出今后进一步补充、完善的建议。     

亲子关系诉讼中的亲子鉴定协力义务论——兼评《婚姻法解释（三）》第2条

亲子鉴定是解明亲子关系的利器。亲子鉴定协力义务属于公法性质的勘验协力义务,其义务范围和主体范围均较为广泛。亲子鉴定协力义务的法理依据有诉讼经济、证明妨碍及事案解明义务三个。是否科处被检人协力义务,在实体上应当本着保护子女最佳利益的原则进行利益衡量,在程序上应当具备一定的要件。被检人在具备正当理由时得拒绝鉴定,但不当拒绝的,可对其进行直接强制或间接强制。我国《婚姻法解释（三）》第2条意义积极,但也存在一些不足：适用条件不明确、当事人程序保障条款缺失、拒绝鉴定所生法律效果较为模糊、适用的主体范围偏窄以及与实体法没有很好地对接等。     

婚内侵权行为的民事责任承担

对于《中华人民共和国婚姻法》（以下简称《婚姻法》）第四十六条及其司法解释关于婚内侵权的规定,司法实践中产生歧义：一是认为我国不认可婚内侵权行为需民事责任承担,理由是＂法不入家门＂,且执行存在困难;二是认为婚内侵权行为理应如其他主体之间的侵权行为一样承担相同的民事责任,受害人可依据《中华人民共和国民法通则》及其《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》要求侵权的配偶承担民事责任。在第二种意见占据主流后,《婚姻法》及配套司法解释的修改就是顺理成章的事,而在执行环节制定可具操作性的措施是立法修改成功与否的关键。     

Reviews

Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: The Marriage Contract. By Lenore J. Weitzman. [New York: The Free Press. 1981. 536 pp. (incl. index) $17.95.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: Cohabitation Without Marriage. By Michael D. A. Freeman and Christina M. Lyon. [Aldershot, Hants.: Gower, 1983. 228 pp. (incl. index). £15.00.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: Unmarried Couples. By Winifred H. Holland. [Toronto: The Carswell Company. 1982. 249 pp. (incl. index) Can.$32.50.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: The Family Home. By W. T. Murphy and Hilary Clark. [London: Sweet and Maxwell. 1983. xxi and 229 pp. (incl. index) £6£95 (paperback).] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: Fundamentals of Securities Regulation. By Louis Loss. [Boston and Toronto: Little Brown and Company. 1983. xxiii and 1353 pp. No price stated.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: Economic Realities and the Female Offender. By Jane Roberts Chapman. [Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. 1980. 234 pp. (incl. bibliog. and index). No price stated.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: Girl Delinquents. By Anne Campbell. [Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1981. 266 pp. Paperback: £4-50.1 Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: The Analysis of Judicial Reform. Edited by Philip L. Dubois. [Lexington: D. C. Heath. 1982. xiv and 221 pp. £18·50.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: The Politics of Judicial Reform. Edited by Philip L. Dubois. [Lexington: D. C. Heath. 1982. xi and 187 pp. £18·50.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: Prosecution in the Public Interest. By Susan R. Moody and Jacqueline Tombs. [Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. 1982. xiii and 167 pp. £12·00.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: Free Speech: A Philosophical Inquiry. By Frederick Schauer. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1982. 237 pp. £ 20·00 (hardback) £6-50 (paperback).] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: English Law and French Law. By René David. [Stevens/Eastern Law House. 1980. 195 pp. Hardback: £12·50.] Legal Marriage—who Needs it?: La Responsabilité Civile. By André Tunc. [Economica. 1981. 161 pp. Paperback: 65F.]     

《民法典·婚姻家庭编》之我见

尽管 2 0 0 1年《婚姻法》(修正案 )取得了可喜的进步 ,但作为一个阶段性、过渡性的立法措施 ,其制度性的缺失以及内容的失之过简 ,难于操作 ,使其仍然有很大的修改空间。民法的法典化为婚姻法的第二步修订提供了极好的机会。完善婚姻家庭法就应当按照法律规范的科学性、前瞻性、实用性 ,全面、系统地对婚姻家庭关系的各项制度作出明确具体的规定 ,而非该制度的纲要性规范。     

三部有关物权法司法解释规定的十五个重要问题

对最高人民法院颁布的<关于审理建筑物区分所有权纠纷案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释>、<关于审理物业服务纠纷案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释>、<关于审理城镇房屋租赁合同纠纷案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释>进行分析.     

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）、     

我国婚姻家庭法的变革与局限

我国2001年颁布的《婚姻法》顺应经济社会发展婚姻家庭关系调整的需要,修改并发展了1980年颁布的《婚姻法》,构建了多元化的夫妻财产制度体系,建立了离婚救济制度,强化了对妇女权益、无过错配偶方和未成年子女利益的保护,形成了家事纠纷多元解决机制的雏形。但新《婚姻法》对夫妻约定财产制的设立、变更与效力等规定不够明确,现行离婚救济制度未达到预期的调整效果,未成年子女最大利益原则体现不够充分,家庭暴力的调查、预防与救助机制以及家事纠纷调解制度不够健全等诸多问题,仍有待进一步发展和完善。     

中国内地与香港诉讼离婚法律制度比较研究

香港在法律渊源上属于普通法系,现行法律主要沿用英国法律.其<婚姻诉讼条例>关于离婚法定理由、离婚条件、离婚限制、离婚的诉讼程序及法律效力等方面均与内地婚姻法有着很大区别.在香港回归祖国后,两地居民通婚的情形日渐趋多,由此带来的婚姻家庭纠纷也日益凸现,如何协调两地因法律规定的差异所生"司法冲突",是今后一段时间内两地法律界需认真探讨的问题.     

我国《婚姻法》中夫妻财产制度的完善

婚姻法是民法的重要组成部分,也关系到千千万万个家庭和每一个人。在经过激烈的争论和探讨后,我国新《婚姻法》终于尘埃落定,并相继出台了两个司法解释,但理论研究和学术讨论并未因此而结束。本文通过对作为婚姻法重要内容的财产关系的若干问题的论述,指出了某些尚值得商榷的地方,并对此提出了一点建议。     

沦"儿童最大利益优先原则"在中国的确立——兼论《婚姻法》等相关法律的不足及其完善

International documents like the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) propose that in mediating on children issues, the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration. In China, the Constitution and the Law on the Protection of Minors have already set out the terms in principle for the protection of minors, however, it has not been defined in the Marriage Law (2001). In order to enforce the commitment of respecting and safeguarding human rights, the child’s best interest principle should be established in marriage and family law, along with amending related provisions. Chen Wei is a professor of law, and director of the Research Center for Foreign Family Law and Women Theories in the China Southwest University of Political Science and Law. She is in the teachings of civil law, family law, law of succession, the history of civil law and comparative family law for years. During 2003–2004, Prof. Chen, being a visiting scholar, studied foreign family laws in the Faculty of Law, Sydney University. In academic field, she has published over 50 research articles in China and abroad; and her monograph is Research on the Legislations of Marriage and Family Law of China (2000). Further, she has taken charge of editing over 10 books, for instance, A Comparative Study of Family Laws between the Mainland and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan of China (2002), A Comparative Study of Foreign Marriage and Family Law (2006) and A Comparative Study of Succession Laws among the Mainland, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan of China (2007).