错误扣船归责比较研究

错误扣船存在广义与狭义之分。各国对于错误扣船一般适用过错责任原则,但各国适用的归责规则差别较大;大陆法系国家主要坚持客观归责,根据事后实体裁决的不利结果,追究扣船申请人其先扣船行为的错扣责任;英美法系国家主要坚持主观归责,仅要求滥用扣船权利的扣船申请人承担错扣责任;我国有关错误扣船责任的立法及司法实践反映了客观归责的要求,但面临着许多理论和实践困难,应予修改,以便建立船舶扣押诚信机制。     

船舶扣押中的若干法律与实务问题浅析

船舶扣押关系实质是民事诉讼法律关系 ,其主体、客体和内容应符合法律的相应规定。重复扣船、多次扣船、择地诉讼及错误扣船等是扣船实务中较常见的棘手问题 ,作者在理论上给予了释疑     

论船舶扣押期间的风险

船舶扣押(扣船)的目的是为了保全海事请求,而被扣押船舶(被扣船)即是达到这一目的的保全标的物;一旦保全标的物不复存在,扣船目的就无从达到。因此,申请扣船的海事请求权(扣船入)应特别重视维持被扣船在物理上和法律上继续是本次扣船程序的保全标的物,直至扣船程序的正常终结。如果扣船并非错误或不正当,扣船程序的正常终结一般只有两种形式:一是被扣方提供了满意的变通担保使被扣船获释,二是     

新加坡扣船新发展——评新加坡上诉庭the“Bunge Melati 5”案

长久以来,对新加坡扣船的条件和相关证明标准没有形成统一认识,当事人在扣船案件中经常产生争议。在介绍新加坡扣船案例——the"Bunge Melati 5"案的基础上,回顾了新加坡扣船应适用的法律条文规定,结合相关法律条文规定和新加坡上诉庭2008年所作重要扣船判例the"Vasiliy Golovnin"案,厘清了新加坡上诉庭在本案判决中阐述的索赔人在新加坡申请扣船应采取的五个基本步骤及其相应的证明标准。最后,对新加坡扣船应履行的披露义务和错误扣船损害赔偿责任认定标准进行了简要讨论,并得出结论:出于维护全球扣船中心的地位和避免法院陷入大量无依据扣船案件的泥潭的目的,新加坡法院通过这些案例对扣船争议中当事人的权利和义务进行平衡。     

诉前扣船二题

申谓诉前扣船错误 《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》(下称《海诉法》)第二十条规定“海事请求人申请海事请求保全错误的，应当赔偿被请求人或者利害关系人因此所遭受的损失。”在诉前扣押船舶这种最为典型的海事请求保全中，海事请求人中请诉前扣船错误(即申请海事请求保全错误）具体包括哪些情肜，法律和司法解释对此未予明确。各海事法院在审判实践中除了对海事请求人申请诉前扣船后，     

论错误扣船

为保障海事请求权的实现，法院赋予某些法定的海事请求人船舶扣押权，以为其海事请求获得担保。在我国，这种权利是指海事请求人申请法院扣留与债权发生有关的当事船舶或责任人拥有的其他船舶的一项程序性权利。实践中，随着扣船案件的增多，错误扣船现象时有发生。然而，关于错误扣船的性质及其责任，在法律上却缺乏明确的规定。在《统一有关扣押海运船舶若干规定的国际公约》     

案例解析涉外光船租赁合同外国临时仲裁条款的法律效力——兼论我国法院扣船与外国临时仲裁的关系

本文通过对一宗涉外光船租赁合同纠纷案件的解析，认为：外国临时仲裁条款的法律效力，应依据仲裁协议的准据法并结合1958年《纽约公约》，从其形式、当事人行为能力、仲裁事项的可仲裁性、仲裁协议内容等四方面加以认定。有效的外国临时仲裁条款不排除租方申请我国法院扣押船方所属船舶。对船方提供担保而言，租方若不在扣船之日起30日内提起仲裁，担保应裁定发还；若提起仲裁，如果租方请求得到仲裁支持，租方可申请法院执行担保，如果得不到仲裁支持，担保也应裁定发还。对租方提供的反担保而言，若租方的请求得到仲裁支持，表明租方申请扣船正确，反担保应裁定发还，若得不到仲裁支持，表明租方申请扣船错误，船方应在诉讼时效内向法院对租方提起因扣船错误引起的损害赔偿之诉，并申请执行反担保。     

论99国际扣船公约对我国的影响

本文拟就 99年国际扣船公约与我国现有的扣船制度在海事请求范围、可供扣押船舶范围、船舶担保制度和扣船管辖等方面进行比较研究 ,并提出可供我国的扣船立法和司法借鉴改善之处。     

诉讼前扣押船舶中的担保问题浅议

诉松前扣押船舶(下简称“诉前扣船”)是由在债务人所有的财产上所设定的权利而构成的担保。诉前扣船中的债务人分别是指扣船的申请人和被申请人,这是由实施诉前扣船构成的特殊法律关系所确定的,因此这种债务人的债务身分具有暂时性,一俟其民     

论再次扣船

本文在对可申请再次扣船的情形和范围进行分析的基础上,指出再次扣船现行规定的立法缺陷并提出完善意见.同时,对司法实践中容易与再次扣船相混淆的重复扣船问题,加以比较研究.     

Officials' Estimates of the Incidence of “Actual Innocence” Convictions

Evidence indicates that the conviction and imprisonment of factually innocent persons occur with some regularity. Most research focuses on causes, but the incidence of wrongful convictions is an important scientific and policy issue, especially as no official body gathers data on miscarriages of justice. Two methods are available for discovering the incidence of wrongful conviction: (1) enumerating specific cases and (2) having criminal justice experts estimate its incidence. Counts or catalogues of wrongful conviction necessarily undercount its incidence and are subject to accuracy challenges. We surveyed Michigan criminal justice officials, replicating a recent Ohio survey, to obtain an expert estimate of the incidence of wrongful conviction. All groups combined estimated that wrongful convictions occurred at a rate of less than ½ percent in their own jurisdiction and at a rate of 1–3 percent in the United States. Defense lawyers estimate higher rates of wrongful conviction than judges, who estimate higher rates than police officials and prosecutors. These differences may be explained by professional socialization. An overall wrongful conviction estimate of ½ percent extrapolates to about 5,000 wrongful felony convictions and the imprisonment of more than 2,000 innocent persons in the United States every year.     

论诉前扣船担保方式

论述了抵押和质押作为担保方式在海事诉讼中不是运用最多的,程序法中对这两种担保方式的规定,为中国强制执行和财产保全理论提出了新的课题。保证是诉前扣船中最常用的担保方式,保证人的资格对保证的实现至关重要。优先权在诉前扣船中适用具有可行性,浮动抵押不能适用于诉前扣船。     

Prosecutor Risk,Maturation, and Wrongful Conviction Practice

In this article we rethink the connection between prosecutorial experience and conviction psychology that undergirds much of the academic literature about wrongful convictions. The conviction psychology account of prosecutorial behavior asserts that prosecutorial susceptibility to cognitive biases deepens over time, thereby increasing the risk that prosecutors will become involved in wrongful convictions the longer they stay in the profession. Our interviews with more than 200 state prosecutors call into question the basis for this asserted correlation between prosecutorial experience and risk of misconduct. The prosecutors we met consistently reported that, all else equal, prosecutors tend to become more balanced, rather than more adversarial, over time. Hence, the prosecutors who present the greatest risk of producing a wrongful conviction are those who are either inexperienced or resistant to the normal maturation process. For this reason, we suggest that wrongful conviction researchers and database designers pay closer attention to the variables associated with prosecutorial experience and resistance that might affect the development of prosecutorial maturity and the consequent risk of wrongful convictions.     

论被害人过错影响刑事责任之正当依据

有关被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据主要存在“风险创设”、“比较过错”、“值得保护”以及“自我答责”、“期待可能性”几种代表性的理论。这些理论在一定程度上说明了被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当性基础，但这些理论的共同缺陷在于：首先，脱离刑事责任的内在结构本身，片面地理解犯罪构成对刑事责任的决定性作用；其次，将被害人过错理解为纯客观情境因素，无视被害人这一“人”的能动要素对犯罪构成各个层面的复杂、全面的影响。因此，这些理论的解释力和说明性都是有限的。只有从刑事责任的内在构造入手，分析被害人过错对刑事责任内在构成要素的全面影响，才能真正探寻到被害人过错影响刑事责任的正当依据。     

刑事错判证明标准的名案解析

错判的发生具有普遍性和蛰伏性,错判的认知具有模糊性和对抗性,因此我们需要明确认定错判的证明标准。通过对美国、英国、德国的错判证明标准的实例解析,我们可以看到,他们在认定错判的时候都不适用刑事诉讼中认定被告人有罪的证明标准,而且认定错判的证明标准都低于认定有罪的证明标准。我们应该重新阐释中国刑事诉讼中错判的证明标准,而且应区分启动再审的证明标准、认定错判的证明标准和决定国家赔偿的证明标准。     

Advancing Wrongful Conviction Scholarship: Toward New Conceptual Frameworks

As wrongful conviction scholarship grows, some scholars have suggested that existing research on miscarriages of justice lacks theoretical grounding and methodological sophistication, arguing that the use of social science theory may help to better understand wrongful convictions. In this article, we suggest that it may be useful to draw upon conceptual frameworks found in traditional criminal justice studies, discuss what such approaches might suggest about miscarriages of justice, and begin to explore the questions or topics they may encourage interested researchers to pursue. Furthermore, through this broad theoretical lens, we can see that criminal justice theory is present, at least implicitly, in some existing innocence literature, and that making such theoretical connections more explicit may help to move the study of wrongful conviction into the mainstream of criminal justice research.     

论国有船舶的有限管辖豁免

国有船舶管辖豁免经历了从绝对豁免到限制豁免的发展历程。20世纪初以来,国际社会开始通过国内立法、司法判例、国际条约等实践将用于商业目的的国有船舶排除在管辖豁免的范围之外。但在对国有船舶豁免范围予以限制的同时,应当注意明晰以下三个问题:用于商业目的的国有船舶应当依据船舶的用途来界定;国有企业对于所经营的国有船舶不得主张管辖豁免;国有企业具有独立的法人资格,一国法院不得任意扣押与当事船舶无关的其他国有企业的船舶。     

Structuration Theory and Wrongful Imprisonment: From ‘Victimhood’ to ‘Survivorship’?

Building on existing research from a zemiological approach, this article seeks to contribute to a more ontological understanding of the production and reproduction of harms associated with wrongful imprisonment in England and Wales. Drawing from Anthony Giddens’s theory of structuration, it is argued that whilst the harms of wrongful imprisonment are both complex and devastating, victims need not be perceived as entirely passive. Rather, victims of wrongful imprisonment can be viewed as knowledgeable agents with the intrinsic capacity and agency to strategically cope with and even survive the harms that they experience. The article concludes with personal accounts by victims of wrongful imprisonment that form an identifiable ‘survivor’ discourse to highlight some of the key critical factors that are vital in helping victims of wrongful imprisonment to re-structure their lives after release.