Certainty, Severity, and Skyjacking

A central issue in the controversy surrounding the death penalty is the question of deterrence. Specifically, does the additional severity of capital punishment over life imprisonment serve to deter potential criminals? I attempt to deal with this question by separating the effects of severity of punishment from those of certainty of punishment by examining various woys in which these factors have been manipulated in the attempt to curb the incidence of skyjacking. I conclude that increasing the certainty of punishment results in a decrease in crime, whereas increasing the severity does not, in effect arguing against the necessity of the death penulty.     

教育与就业关系的转型：从确定性到不确定性

我国教育规模迅猛扩展带来的一个直接的结果是,教育与就业的关系正处于由确定走向不确定的转型之中.教育与就业关系的这种转型既有有利的一面,也有可能的不利影响,转型过程就需要权衡代价与收益.当前我国为实现教育与就业关系的顺利转型,需要减少毕业生就业过程中的信息不对称、把握高等教育规模扩展的节奏、兼顾社会对教育与就业关系不确定性的承受能力、完善教育成本分担机制等.     

应尽照顾被保护人的私人义务--以应尽监护未成熟子女的父母的义务为中心

一　问题的提起1.对有些人 (未成年人、精神障碍者、身体障碍者、老人等 )来说 ,必需受到他人的保护① 。有关保护的形式 ,可以区分为现实的、具体的生活上的照顾 (以下称之为“照料”) ,经济上的援助 (扶养 ) ,以及财产上的管理 [包括由于法律行为的援助 (同意或者法定代理 ) ]。其中 ,从人类生存的观点出发 ,最根本的是照料。要说最切实的、必需的这种照料 ,还得数未成熟人中对婴儿的照料 ,通常负有照料义务并在现实中完成照料义务的 ,是父母或者监护人等的私人 ,为主的还是父母。因此 ,本文虽然是以父母应监护未成熟子女的义务为中心 ,但…     

Negligence,Mens Rea,and What We Want the Element of Mens Rea to Provide

It is widely agreed that the top three Model Penal Code culpability levels suffice for criminal liability, but the fourth is controversial. And it isn̵     

离职雇员的商业秘密管制：竞业禁止与保密义务

离职后的雇员保守前雇主的商业秘密和商业秘密以外的其他秘密,以及所承担的竞业禁止责任,这三者义务不仅在法理基础上有所不同,而且其法律依据也存在着差异。只有厘清三者义务的不同法律性质,才能准确的适用法律,法律背后的政策方能得以施行,当事人的合法利益亦有望获得合理的及有效的保护。     

Certainty of Terms and Leases: Curiouser and Curiouser

The common law rule that requires leases to have a fixed terminus from the outset is one that has been much criticised. In Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co‐operative Ltd, the Supreme Court managed to blunt its effect by suggesting that most leases of uncertain duration can be transformed into 90‐year tenancies. However, it is suggested that their Lordships have possibly misunderstood and overstretched an ancient common law ‘rule’ and have not fully considered some of the implications of their decision.     

论法律的确定性与不确定性

崇尚法律的确定性,是西方法学界一个悠久的学术传统。20世纪以来,西方法学界关于这一问题的立场发生了根本转变,转而强调法律的不确定性。在法律运行的过程中,存在着多种不确定性因素,包括法律标准的不确定性、事实认定的不确定性、司法人员个性的不确定性和其他社会因素的不确定性等四个方面。无论是法律的确定性,还是法律的不确定性,都是相对的,而且,二者都蕴藏着一定的社会价值。     

论董事问责的诚信路径

董事经营决策的尊重审查模式契合了适应性效率的要求,有利于鼓励董事进行尝试性试验。但是,在商事判断规则作用下,董事问责需原告负担严苛的举证责任,董事决策审查形式化以及注意标准的不确定性,使得注意义务几乎被掏空,介于重大过失与恶意之间的董事失信情形往往逃脱法律责任。诚信路径不仅是问责空隙的填补机制,也是克服股东与董事之间信息不对称问题的重要机制。20世纪90年代以来董事问责的司法实践催生了诚信路径,诚信概念亦因创造性转化而获得新生,其行为标准日益明晰,司法审查可操作性增强。我国可通过《公司法》的司法解释界定诚信的行为标准,将故意让公司违法、不坦诚告知、滥用职权和严重失职纳入其涵摄范围,从而引入诚信问责路径。     

Fair Play, Political Obligation, and Punishment

This paper attempts to establish that, and explain why, the practice of punishing offenders is in principle morally permissible. My account is a nonstandard version of the fair play view, according to which punishment’s permissibility derives from reciprocal obligations shared by members of a political community, understood as a mutually beneficial, cooperative venture. Most fair play views portray punishment as an appropriate means of removing the unfair advantage an offender gains relative to law-abiding members of the community. Such views struggle, however, to provide a plausible account of this unfairly gained benefit. By contrast, on my account punishment’s permissibility follows more straightforwardly from the fair play view of political obligation: specifically, the rule instituting punishment is itself among those rules with which members of the political community are obliged to comply. For criminal offenders, compliance requires submitting to the prospect of punishment.     

授益行政的义务主体及义务属性

授益行政由一定的权利义务构成。授益行政对于受益人而言,主要意味着权利,但它同时也负有一定的义务;对于行政主体而言,主要意味着义务,但对个人和组织负有义务的又不仅限于行政主体,国家、社会、受益人以及第三人均负有相应的义务。合理界分各方义务主体的义务属性和义务内容,正确处理各方之间的关系,科学配置权利义务资源,是完善授益行政制度体系的前提条件。     

试论董事对公司的责任

我国《公司法》中有关董事对公司的责任的条款少 ,规定得过于原则 ,不利于操作。应当借鉴国外立法经验 ,加强与完善立法。     

Russian data retention requirements: Obligation to store the content of communications

This paper presents an analysis of Russian data retention regulations. The most controversial point of the Russian data retention requirements is an obligation to keep the content of communications that is untypical for legislation of European and other countries. These regulations that oblige telecom operators and Internet communication services to store the content of communications should come into force on July 1, 2018.The article describes in detail the main components of the data retention mechanism: the triggers for its application, its scope, exemptions and barriers to its enforcement. Attention is paid to specific principles for implementation of content retention requirements based on the concepts of proportionality, reasonableness and effectiveness.Particular consideration is given to the comparative aspects of the Russian data retention legislation and those applying in different countries (mainly EU member states). The article focuses on the differences between the Russian and EU approaches to the question of how to strike a balance between public security interests and privacy. While the EU model of data retention is developing in the context of profound disputes on human rights protection, the Russian model is mostly concentrated on security interests and addresses mainly economic, technological aspects of its implementation.The paper stresses that a range of factors (legal, economic and technological) needs to be taken into account for developing an optimal data retention system. Human rights guarantees play the key role in legitimization of such intrusive measures as data retention. Great attention should be paid to the procedures, precise definitions, specification of entitled authorities and the grounds for access to data, providing legal immunities and privileges, etc. Only this extensive range of legal guarantees can balance intervention effect of state surveillance and justify data retention practices.     

Family, Social Inequalities, and the Persuasive Force of Interpersonal Obligation

To date, the privatization of the costs of social inequalitiesfor women and children has been criticized predominantly froma policy perspective. This article seeks to make a strongercase against remedying social inequalities through private lawobligations by addressing the theoretical difficulties withsuch privatization with a particular focus on familial obligations.I take my core examples from the current Canadian understandingof the spousal and child support obligations. My analysis proposes and proceeds on the basis of a new discoursefor obligations traditionally grouped together as "Family Law"obligations: first, interpersonal obligations, which arise fromand tie together two citizens through either a single interactionor through their relationship as a whole; second, social obligations,which are owed by the community as a whole to individual citizens. I argue that the persuasive force of the focus on an individual'sresponsibility for another's financial need has obscured thereality of the state's obligation, the broader social obligation,to respond to this need. I conclude with a discussion of theconsequences of my analysis for the future of the spousal andchild support obligations. If we deny an expanded role to thesesupport obligations, can we do so in a way that avoids leavingthe impoverished in an even more precarious position?     

法律之道：在确定性与灵活性之间

一方面,人们对法律的确定性抱有极大的期待,希望以此获得共同生活秩序的安宁;而另一方面,在法律的制度实践中,人们也始终追求着法律的灵活性,以实现公平正义。这不仅是法律自身发展的历史图像,而且也是人类的法律思想成长的历史图像。在确定性需求与灵活性需求的不断碰撞和妥协中,人类社会的法律制度中普遍形成了一种可以应对社会生活复杂性与变化性的＂适应性机制＂。     

Islands in a Sea of Obligation: Limits of the Duty to Rescue

Law and Philosophy -