我国证券法的域外效力研究

证券市场的国际化使得一国证券法适用于境外发生的某些证券行为成为必要。中国致力于打造国际金融中心,建立证券市场的国际板,有必要赋予其证券法以适度的域外效力。美国证券法半个多世纪以来的实践值得研究和借鉴,特别是2010年的Morrison案判决,颠覆了此前的行为标准和结果标准,而代之以交易标准。鉴于中国目前正在修订《证券法》,建议其中增设关于域外效力的有关条款。其具体设计可保留现行的无域外效力推定,以行为地点作为判别管辖权的原则,同时辅以结果标准,允许中国法院对某些发生于境外但对境内有直接影响的证券行为进行管辖。同时,中国证券法应允许法院以非方便管辖原则为由驳回某些起诉。而从长远看,中国应积极推动制定证券跨国诉讼的多边国际公约,以根本解决管辖权冲突。     

我国证券法域外管辖中效果标准的发展与完善

随着证券交易的日益频繁,为了应对各国证券法域外管辖的扩张,2020年实施的《证券法》第2条增设了域外管辖条款,该条款主张对境外损害境内国家利益、社会公共利益和境内投资者合法权益的证券违法行为进行管辖.但该条仅仅是原则性条款,不能指导具体的实践,因此具体的适用规则可以借鉴美国相关法条的效果标准,即当境外证券发行和交易行为...     

标准必要专利全球许可费率管辖权之争——各国管辖根据与中国司法选择

在当事人没有达成管辖合意的情况下，一国法院裁判标准必要专利全球许可费率是否会造成司法管辖权冲突，如何理解专利权地域性、专属管辖与裁判全球许可费率的关系，如何确定一国法院裁判全球许可费率的管辖根据，上述问题迫切需要厘清和解决。纵观域外司法实践，主要司法辖区依据不同管辖根据确立裁判全球许可费率的管辖权。在借鉴域外司法经验的基础上，建议我国统一各类标准必要专利纠纷的民事案由为“标准必要专利许可纠纷”，降低更密切联系的要求，修改不方便法院原则的审查标准和法律后果，以及完善管辖权异议规则，为实质性解决标准必要专利许可争议贡献中国司法的理性和智慧。     

美国证券私募发行认定标准探析

美国证券私募发行的认定标准源于《1933年证券法》的九字标准,在SEC、法院、美国律师协会等的参与下,通过几大经典案例的判决和新规则的不断制定,渐渐由"人数标准"发展到"需要标准",由"关系检验"发展为"分离检验",不断具体化和合理化,对我国私募制度的建立也有很大的参考价值。     

航空产品责任案件管辖权的确定:美国实践及其启示

航空产品责任是美国乃至全球航空事故索赔诉讼的一个难题。该类案件具有显著的国际性特征,因此决定了其国际管辖权的分配。美国法院在航空产品责任领域适用属人管辖理论,基于当事人和国家利益,针对四类产品责任案件,积极利用持续"业务活动"联系因素、"代理机构"理论、"商业流通"标准、"公平正义"传统观念,抑制适用不方便法院原则,灵活调控案件,使其回归本国管辖。中国制造的C919大飞机不久将进入国际市场,为防范航空产品责任诉讼泛滥和防止与中国有关的案件流向他国法院,中国司法实践可借鉴美国经验,对域外发生的航空产品责任案件,谨慎适用不方便法院原则,将其视为一种例外规则,适度扩张管辖权,做到"管""拒"自如,以保护航空器制造商和国家的核心权益。     

提单管辖条款的法律效力：实践审视与规则续造

提单管辖条款是承运人寻求对其最有利的法院和准据法以规避诉讼风险的产物。我国现行法律部分承认提单管辖条款的效力,但零散模糊,缺乏可预见性。该条款是协议管辖的特殊形式,以意思自治为基础,其法律效力的争议核心是对当事人合意的解释与限制。我国司法实践中选择域外法院的大多无效,缺乏实际联系、不符合格式条款要求、不能反映当事人合意是常见理由。我国续造提单管辖规则的路径应当是,在基本立场上平衡司法主权和国际礼让原则,确立以客观联系为基础的实际联系标准;在具体规则上对当事人意思自治予以合理尊重,参照国际公约标准明确格式条款的具体要求。纾解提单管辖理论争议,有助于发展我国协议管辖制度,并逐步协调司法实践。     

世界证券市场的日益国际化与美国证券法的域外管辖权(中)

三、美国证券法域外管辖权的形成 美国联邦证券法的基础,是1933年证券法和1934年证券交易法,而反欺诈行为条例则是证券法的利剑。美国法院在使用证券法的域外管辖权时,首先检讨可谓的“立法意图”(legislative intent)。然而,1933年证券法和1934年证券交易法在域外管辖权上並未作任     

网络数据长臂管辖权——从"最低限度联系"标准到"全球共管"模式

长臂管辖权作为一种特殊的司法管辖权,其与网络数据的结合最早可以追溯到20世纪80年代中期,然而在相当长的一段时间内,数据只是进一步确定"最低限度联系"存在的连接点之一,其独立价值并未被重视.这一状况自2018年《欧盟一般数据保护条例》生效以来发生了根本性的转变,以《欧盟一般数据保护条例》为代表的部分专门性数据立法参考保护管辖原则的意涵,极端扩张了国内立法的域外适用,并通过设立具有司法职能的监督机构,为司法管辖权的单方域外行使提供了替代路径.这一架构摒弃了"最低限度联系"标准的使用,转而以"全球共管"模式来指导管辖规则的设计,赋予本国法院"对起诉时与管辖区域有联系的非居民被告的管辖权",具备了长臂管辖的外观要件.这一长臂管辖权扩张的新模式对于我们而言既是挑战亦是机遇.挑战在于:单方司法管辖权的域外扩张会导致国家间管辖权冲突与争诉的常态化,无疑将对各国司法主权造成极大的冲击;机遇在于:不同于"最低限度联系"标准,全新司法管辖规则的适用具有"保护管辖"的意涵,其与网络主权并非天然地对立.辩证地研究美欧相关立法与司法实践能为构建网络数据长臂管辖权的中国模式提供有益的参考与经验.     

法律域外适用体系建设中的管辖权：演化规则与关联结构

国家管辖规则及其结构安排是法律域外适用体系建设的核心之一。域外管辖的传统法理基础来自国家对领土的有效管辖,并在实践中派生出领土延伸和域外投射两种类型。随着全球化和数字化时代的到来,国家对人、事物、行为和场所的管辖均具有了衍生特征。与其从领土的角度考察域外管辖权,不如以“联系”为焦点探索国家管辖规则。国家管辖权的合理配置面临大国过度管辖与小国“搭便车”等难题,对此可在认可多元主义管辖权必然存续的背景下,探索将国家与管辖对象之间“联系”的紧密和重要程度作为评价管辖权行使正当性的方法,同时发挥跨国企业的主动选择能动性,强化各国维护国际公共秩序的责任。在推动我国法域外适用的法律体系建设中,“真实联系”与“合法利益”应是行使域外管辖权考量的核心要素。     

华为技术有限公司等与康文森无线许可有限公司确认不侵害专利权及标准必要专利许可纠纷案

一、对于具有“禁诉令”性质的行为保全申请,人民法院应当依照民事诉讼法第一百条及《最高人民法院关于审查知识产权纠纷行为保全案件适用法律若干问题的规定》第七条的规定予以审查,重点考察被申请人在域外法院起诉或者申请执行域外法院判决对中国诉讼的审理和执行是否会产生实质影响、采取行为保全措施是否符合国际礼让原则等因素。关于被申请人在域外法院起诉或者申请执行域外法院判决对中国诉讼的审理和执行是否会产生实质影响,可以考虑中外诉讼的当事人是否基本相同、审理对象是否存在重叠、被申请人的域外诉讼行为效果是否会对中国诉讼造成干扰等。关于国际礼让原则,可以考虑案件受理时间先后、案件管辖适当与否、对域外法院审理和裁判的影响适度与否等。二、禁止被申请人为一定行为的行为保全措施具有特殊性,如果被申请人拒不遵守行为保全裁定所确定的不作为义务,违法实施了改变原有状态的行为,则其故意违法行为构成对行为保全裁定的持续性违反和对原有状态的持续性改变,应视为其每日均实施了违法行为,可以视情处以每日罚款并按日累计。     

证券交易所自律管理行为的司法审查标准——评叶伟钢诉新加坡证券交易所案

现代公共管理不再由政府部门和法定机构大权独揽,未经公法授权的私人机构亦能占据一席之地。一些机构的公法职权与私法职权界限日渐模糊,导致难以判断这类机构实施的行为究竟属于公法范畴还是私法范畴。新加坡证券交易所即属于此种情况的机构。叶伟钢诉新加坡证券交易所案是一个具有里程碑意义的案件,新加坡高等法院通过此案确立了司法审查中的渊源标准与实质标准。即使决策机构未经公法授权,但只要该机构在事实层面上履行了公共职能,其决策就可能需要受到司法审查。叶伟钢诉新加坡证券交易所案中确立的司法审查标准,对于讨论我国证券交易所自律管理行为的行政可诉性问题具有借鉴意义。     

隐私权的判定——“合理隐私期待标准”的确立与适用

隐私权存在与否的判定问题是隐私侵权责任承担的关键所在。而美国联邦最高法院在1967年Katz v.United States案中确立的"合理的隐私期待"标准,在世界多个国家的适用已被证明是比较可行的隐私权的判定方法。我国隐私权司法实践在吸收、借鉴"合理的隐私期待"标准时应明确"私人事实"、"法律规定"、"社会习俗"和"利益平衡"四种隐私期待的客观判断要素,实现判决结果的一致性,及对他人隐私利益最大程度的保护。     

Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World - Does Territoriality Matter? Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers [2004] 2 SCR 427

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Societyof Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v CanadianAssociation of Internet Providers [2004] 2 SCR 427 is significantfor two reasons: (a) the Canadian Supreme Court held that InternetService Providers should be exempted from copyright liabilityas long as they provide only a conduit service in transmittingcopyright materials between Internet users (a point which isconsistent with many national copyright laws); (b) the majorityof the Canadian Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion thatthe appropriate test to determine whether an infringement forthe unauthorized transmission of online copyright material hasoccurred within the Canadian jurisdiction is the ‘realand substantial connection’ test (LeBel J, however, dissentedand was of the view that the correct test to apply is the ‘hostserver’ test). This paper studies these two tests as propoundedby the Canadian Supreme Court and assesses their strengths andweaknesses, especially in light of the territoriality principlein copyright law.     

Agency Workers, Employment Rights and the Ebb and Flow of Freedom of Contract

This note discusses two Court of Appeal cases relating to the employment status of temporary agency workers, James v London Borough of Greenwich and Consistent Group v Kalwak . In James the Court considered the test for implying a contract of service between temp and end user, and in Kalwak the Court examined the use of 'sham' to set aside contractual documents between the parties. The authors examine whether the commercial approach adopted towards trilateral employment relationships in these cases is justified.     

The Development of EU Case‐Law on Age Discrimination in Employment: ‘Will You Still Need Me? Will You Still Feed Me? When I'm Sixty‐Four’

This article addresses the development of age discrimination law in the Court of Justice and concludes that there is a marked difference in the level of discretion given to Member States in cases relating to mandatory retirement policies. The article will critique the approach of the Court of Justice to the legitimate objective test and the proportionality test in retirement cases. It will also argue that the decisions of the Court of Justice to date have all involved cases with very similar factual scenarios, and the article hypothesises how a different conclusion might be reached in cases with different factors. It also considers the impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on such cases. The article concludes by arguing that mandatory retirement policies may no longer be compatible with EU law and that there is a need to move towards more flexible retirement policies.     

亲子关系诉讼中的亲子鉴定推定及其改革

最高人民法院于2011年创制的亲子鉴定推定以实现亲子确认诉讼的确定性解决为目标,主要的缺陷是模糊了举证证明责任制度的程序地位、与举证证明责任的程序功能相悖、适用条件模糊。作为其理论依据的证明妨碍理论难以为亲子鉴定推定提供正当性,事实上域外很少有采用亲子鉴定推定的立法,即使个别采亲子鉴定推定立法例的国家,司法中对之的适用也非常谨慎。应对亲子确认诉讼中,当事人一方拒绝配合协助鉴定的情况,可以坚持直接强制为原则,并辅之鉴定材料的替代获取。     

Situating Exclusion of Evidence Analysis in its Socio-Legal Place: A Tale of Judicial Populism

In the 2009 case of R. v. Grant, the Supreme Court of Canada reformulated the exclusion of evidence framework in the context of Charter breaches. The case was something of a revolution for those who study evidence law and the Charter. Thus far, the case has been the subject of much debate and even empirical study. Few academic papers have explored the philosophical predilections of the Court in the decision. In this paper, the authors briefly review the history of the exclusion of evidence test, explain the new framework and discuss the academic and legal responses to the case. The authors place the reasoning of the Court in a broader socio-legal context arguing that the test articulated by the Court is informed by a type of populism that combined with recent Charter cases in the police powers context allows for flexible potentials, ones that could, on occasion, encroach on due process protections. The authors call for scholars and activists to keep a close eye on the emerging jurisprudence in this critical area of Charter adjudication.     

Institut Pasteur v. United States: the AIDS patent dispute, the Contract Disputes Act and the international exchange of scientific data

In the case of Institut Pasteur v. United States, the Institut Pasteur (Pasteur) claimed that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had breached express and implied contracts to share research on AIDS virus samples provided to NCI by Pasteur. NCI scientists allegedly used the samples to acquire information which allowed NCI to file patent applications for an AIDS blood test kit. The United States Claims Court dismissed the complaint by holding that the Institut Pasteur had not complied with certain administrative procedures required by the Contract Disputes Act before bringing its suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Claims Court by holding that the disputed contracts did not fit within the scope of the Contract Disputes Act. Soon after the Court of Appeals decision, President Reagan and Prime Minister Chirac announced a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was to be dropped, American and French scientists were to share credit for having discovered the AIDS virus, and both parties to the suit were to share the patent rights for the AIDS blood test kit. This settlement suggest that international legal disputes involving urgent scientific and medical matters may require dispute resolution techniques that serve as alternatives to national courts.     

Ontario court affirms that medical marijuana regulations are unconstitutional

On 7 October 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Hitzig, which found that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) represented an unconstitutional barrier to accessing a legal supply of marijuana for persons with a recognized medical need. The Court of Appeal tailored its remedial order by striking down the second specialist test required for certain applicants, and eliminating the unconstitutional eligibility and supply provisions, rather than declaring unconstitutional the entire MMAR as the lower court had done. The court's declaration was made effective immediately, in order to maintain the prohibition for non-medicinal possession of marijuana under section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and to constitutionalize the medical exemption for marijuana possession created under the MMAR.     

Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation that the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights has developed in its case law has givenrise to considerable criticism. In this article I draw a distinctionbetween two different ways in which the Court has used the doctrine.The first one is in cases where the Court has to decide whethera particular interference with a Convention freedom is justified.In answering that question, the Court often uses the label ‘marginof appreciation’ without drawing on a substantive theoryof rights that can justify the conclusion reached. The seconduse appears in cases where the Court refrains explicitly fromemploying a substantive test of human rights review on the basisthat there is no consensus among Contracting States on the legalissue before it. My aim is to highlight the principles thatcan be used to justify each use of the doctrine, by locatinghuman rights within broader issues in moral and political philosophy.Particular emphasis is placed on the distinction between reason-blockingand interest-based theories of rights as well as on the natureof the duties of the European Court, as a matter of internationalhuman rights law.