Public Procurement Law, Public Bodies, and the General Interest: Perspectives from Higher Education

Abstract This article examines the interaction of EC public procurement law with the legislative framework governing higher education in England and Wales. It focuses on the impact of this interaction on changing status of higher education institutions, organisations that are at the margins of the much‐discussed public–private divide in law. The Higher Education Act 2004 is viewed as a driver of potential change in status, and a distinction is drawn between mechanisms which appear to support the introduction of change and those that instead introduce fluctuation and lead to concerns for legal certainty at the margins of public law. The study thus also has wider relevance where public‐sector reform is premised upon organisational forms with hybrid or ambiguous status.     

注册资产评估师的专家义务与专家过失

近几年来,证券市场上公开批露的重大违规案例,很多都直接或间接与资产评估有关。本文拟对注册资产评估师的专家义务及其过失作些研讨,以期有益于我国侵权行为法相关制度的构建。一、注册资产评估师专家义务的特性从民事责任理论来看,注册资产评估师具有专家的法律特征。①其作为专家的义务与其作为一般市民的义务是完全不同的。注册资产评估师的专家义务,实际上包含了两大类,其一,约定义务,其二,专家义务。前者是在资产评估师与委托人所订立的资产评估服务合同中,如约定资产评估师必须在30日内完成评估报告书或者是约定资产评估师评估的范围…     

On Blame and Punishment: Self-blame,Other-Blame,and Normative Negligence

Law and Philosophy - Punishment should, at least normally, be reserved for blameworthy actions. But to make sense of that claim, we need an account of blame and of why it might license or even call...     

侵权过失相抵规则中的“过失”研究

对过失相抵规则中“过失”的判断应当采用较为客观的善良管理人注意义务这一标准,即具有一般知识与经验的人诚实地处理事务时所应当具有的状态。在过失与重大过失之外,我国司法审判实践中还存在着一种更轻程度的过失即违反对己义务的过失。过失相抵规则在侵权领域的适用具有正当性与必要性,在适用过失相抵规则的各比较因素中,比较双方过错程度这一因素更具合理性。     

Epistemic Responsibility and Criminal Negligence

Criminal Law and Philosophy - We seem to be responsible for our beliefs in a distinctively epistemic way. We often hold each other to account for the beliefs that we hold. We do this by criticising...     

意外事件与过失之界分——试析穆志祥被控过失致人死亡案

意外事件与过失犯罪二者的法律性质在特定情形下不易界分.穆志祥违规改装车辆,导致被害人意外死亡,被控过失致人死亡.被告人穆志祥的行为不是疏忽大意的过失犯罪所要求的构成要件行为,其行为符合刑法关于过于自信过失的构成要件事实之规定,应认定为过失致人死亡罪.     

业务过失的刑法惩处不必重于普通过失

业务过失的刑法惩处重于普通过失是传统过失犯领域中的铁则,但业务范围的持续扩张使得业务过失与普通过失的边界不清,这造成了这一铁则在司法适用上的异议。更为关键的是,这一铁则的正当性在遭受批判后,为之辩解和反驳的观点始终给不出有说服力的理由。业务过失(犯罪)是我国刑法中的重要类型,但我国刑法未遵守这一铁则,立法者根据现代业务过失(犯罪)的特点作出了契合我国实际的规定,这使得它的法定刑轻重有度。因此,以这一铁则为标尺来评判我国刑法中的业务过失(犯罪)规定并不妥当。并且,业务过失的惩处重于普通过失不是我国业务过失犯罪刑事立法的发展方向。     

监督过失论

一、概论监督过失问题的探讨 ,缘于２０世纪６０年代末期 ,确定灾难性重大事故的过失责任 ,由于此类事故往往是多人过错行为导致 ,而行为人之间又存在着有机的联系 ,追查过程中 ,除了现场直接作业的人员违反规章制度外 ,往往还发现生产经营的组织领导和管理者疏于管理监督。但是 ,实践中一般只处理前者 ,对后者则网开一面。通常是因“地位越高 ,离现场越远 ,越没有责任” ,而免除上层领导者和监督者过失责任。①这样一来 ,不仅适用刑罚不公正 ,而且不利于有效地抑制和预防过失犯罪。为防止这种不公正现象 ,日本等国的学者提出了“监督过失”…     

Special Issue on Recklessness and Negligence

Criminal Law and Philosophy - This paper introduces the Special Issue on Recklessness and Negligence. It highlights the main issues and controversies that surround these concepts and then briefly...     

Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-negligence

Negligence reminds us that we often do and cause things unawares, occasionally with grave results. Given the lack of foresight and intention, some authors argue that people should not be judged culpable for negligence. This paper offers a contrasting view. It argues that gaining control (over our agency, over a risky world) is itself a fundamental responsibility, with both collective and individual elements. The paper underlines both sides, focussing on how they relate as we ascribe responsibility or culpability. Following the introduction, Section 2 (“Culpability and Control: The Negligence Sceptics”) argues that conscious awareness is neither necessary nor sufficient for control. Control is not a property of deliberate choice, so much as a practical achievement. Section 3 (“Non-negligence as a Shared Task”) stresses the collective aspects of non-negligence: creating knowledge about risks, structuring environments to guard against them, and developing standards of care. Failings in the collective task, rather than lack of individual control, mean it can often be unfair to pin culpability on a single individual. Section 4 (“Culpability for Negligence Revisited”) suggests that a basic duty of a responsible person is to acknowledge the ways in which we may do more or less than we mean to, often in ways that create risks. It then sketches an approach to culpability as part of a collective exercise: as we take responsibility for standards of care, and for our own and others’ agency.

     

The Poetry of Negligence

Poetry and legal rhetoric are both forms of what the ancient Greeks called poēsis: the art of the word. Tradition nonetheless assigns poetry to the realm of art and beauty, and legal rhetoric to the different realm of law and truth. The late William Matthews' poem ``Negligence' transgresses the boundaries that we have erected between art and law, and beauty and truth. The poem presents a well-crafted piece of legal rhetoric in the form of art. This essay draws out the implications of Matthews' transgression, and suggests that in the end poetry and law have a lot in common: both are forms of manipulation by means of words. The essay develops this connection in order to join with Emmanuel Levinas in calling for a ``breakup in the omnipotence of the logos.' This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

过失相抵与无过错责任

过失相抵本质上应解释为原因力相抵,故以自己责任原则为据,无过错侵权责任领域适用过失相抵并不存在逻辑障碍,亦无损于其特殊政策价值。过失相抵在无过错责任领域的适用,不应规定以受害人存在重大过失为一般条件,但在人身损害赔偿中的过失相抵,可以作此规定。对于非完全行为能力受害人损害赔偿的过失相抵,可以规定加害人最低赔偿数额。至于无过错责任加害人的附加过错不应成为评估责任大小的考量因素,但若加害人系属故意或重大过失而受害人仅有一般过失,应排除过失相抵的适用。     

缔约过失责任制度论要

首先从理论层面简要检讨了学者关于该制度的种种理论界说 ,然后从社会基础、法律理念演变的历史维度 ,分析了缔约过失这一事实问题的实质 ,指出了缔约过失责任制度产生和存在的合理性和法律理论创新的必要性。接着运用经济分析、规范分析的研究方法 ,从制度层面对缔约过失责任的性质及其构造进行了具体的研讨 ,重点解决了该制度在适用中存在的一些难点问题 ,最后阐释了该制度在现代社会中所具有的一般意义。     

监督过失的客观归责

本文是运用客观归责理论中的危险制造与危险实现的原理来解释监督过失的客观可归责性问题,这对于判断监督者、管理者的行为是否制造了刑法上所不允许的危险,理解监督过失与信赖原则的关系,以及解决管理过失中他人行为介入时对管理者的归责等问题都具有重要的意义.