商标权与企业名称权的冲突及立法解决

商标权与企业名称权之间的冲突产生于注册环节，而后延续到商业使用之中，造成产品标识和宣传效果上的混淆，从而使权利使用人的利益受到损害。究其法律上的原因主要表现为两种权利在设置阶段和行使阶段存在不足。为此建议立法增加“不得侵犯在先权利原则”的适用性，并在《反不正当竞争法》中增加对权利滥用情形的规制。     

Human Rights and Modern Society: A Sociological Analysis from the Perspective of Systems Theory

This article argues that the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann prepares the ground for a genuinely sociological theory of human rights. Through a presentation of Luhmann's work on human rights, it describes the historical and sociological processes that make visible why human rights emerge as a central feature of modern society. It is argued that the emergence of fundamental freedoms and human rights can be related to the dominant structure of modern society, that is, functional differentiation. Human rights are considered as a social institution, whereby modern society protects its own structure against self-destructive tendencies. By giving inalienable and equal rights to all human beings, society ensures that the differentiation between different functional subsystems is maintained and at the same time institutionalizes specific mechanisms to increase stability and protection of the individual. The article first examines some features of the systems-theoretical framework that are used to describe and analyse the issue of human rights. Next, it presents a brief overview of the semantic evolution of human rights. This reconstruction focuses on the question how the modern semantics of human rights can be linked to a specific structural societal transformation. The second part of the essay is devoted to the social function of human rights. After focusing on the general function, it makes a distinction between 'fundamental freedoms' on the one hand, and the 'rights of equality' on the other.     

知识产权的海关保护法律制度及完善

知识产权海关保护是用行政手段对知识产权侵权产品的跨国交易进行规制,目的在于将侵权货物阻止在海关边境外,不让其进入一国或一单独关税区的商业流通,以免破坏正常的经济贸易秩序。我国已建立起相对完备的知识产权海关保护法律制度,但在具体制度方面存在不合理的方面,不利于保护相关权利人的利益。本文分析了我国知识产权海关保护法律制度的现状,对其不足进行探析,并提出了相应的法律完善措施。     

Non‐Individualism,Rights, and Practical Reason

Abstract. The paper looks at an impasse with respect to the role of rights as reasons for action which afflicts contemporary legal and political debates. Adopting a meta‐ethical approach, it moves on to argue that the impasse arises from a philosophical confusion surrounding the role of rights as normative reasons. In dispelling the confusion, an account of reasons is put forward that attempts to capture their normativity by relating them to a reflexive public practice. Two key outcomes are identified as a result of this explication: first, that normative practices are instances of rule‐following; and second, that agents partaking of normative practices possess absolute value (i.e., acquire the status of persons). In light of this explication, rights acquire the status of the most general reasons that purport to guarantee the content of personhood by specifying and safeguarding conditions which enable agents to participate in public practices of universalisation.     

物权与债权二元权利体系的形成以及物权和债权的区分

物权与债权是近现代大陆法系民法中的两个基本概念。这两个概念的形成及对它的质疑经历了三个时期。第一个时期 ,由法国的波蒂埃 (Pothier)、德国的萨维尼 (Saviney)提出了物权与债权的区别 ;第二个时期 ,是对物权与债权的认识、区分进一步深化 ,并最终完成了对二者的理论上的区分 ;第三个时期 ,出现了对物权、债权的区分表示怀疑的声音。也就是说 ,是否存在一种介于物权、债权之间的权利 ?作者认为 ,无论怎样 ,在现在乃至将来一个相当长的时期中 ,维持物权与债权区分的二元权利体系是十分必要的。基于这一考量 ,作者对物权与债权的差异、区别作了完整的阐述。     

Economic freedom and economic rights: Direction,significance and ideology

The discussion here takes stock of and analyses the way in which ideas of economic freedom and basic economic rights have evolved during the last half century to generate legal discourse and legal action, and with what effect, with particular reference to Europe as a site for such developments. It is necessary to probe the understanding and purpose of such ‘rights talk’ and also to set the discourse in relevant ideological contexts. For the purpose of this exercise, a broad distinction is drawn between two major categories of economic right. The first category may be broadly described as ‘integration rights’—entrepreneurial in character, forward‐looking and opportunistic in a historical context of supranational integration and trade liberalisation. The second category, in contrast, may be termed ‘vulnerability rights’; these are more protective in character, and serve to enhance the opportunities of the economically disadvantaged, those sections of the population at risk of social exclusion and poverty. An assessment is made, on the one hand, of the achievement of the movement to exploit integration rights, and on the other hand, the prospect for the mobilisation and assertion of vulnerability rights in the wake of governmental policies of austerity.     

Can the Human Rights Bodies be Used to Produce Interim Measures to Protect Environment-Related Human Rights?

International environmental law does not protect individuals as such. On the other hand, human rights do not formally encompass the right to a healthy environment. This article argues that human rights bodies are suitable forums to protect environment-related human rights. They can do so by producing interim measures to prevent States' actions or inactions towards the environment from infringing on human rights, even if the harmful character of those actions is uncertain. It is demonstrated that the recourse to the precautionary principle is possible to achieve such anticipatory protection and is supported by recent developments in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice. In particular, the article shows that human rights bodies can develop interrelationships and interdependency between rights of different normative values in different areas of international law that will lead to equitable interim measures prescribing positive obligations that are reasonable and appropriate.     

Rights in Criminal Law in the Light of a Will Theory

The will theory of rights has so far been considered incapable of capturing individual rights under criminal law. Adherents of the will theory, therefore, have defended the claim that criminal law does not assign rights to individuals. In this article I argue first, that criminal law does assign individual rights and second, that the will theory of rights may enhance our understanding of these rights. The two major implications of the account are: a volenti non fit iniuria principle for criminal law, and a theoretical framework for an idea of punishment as restitution.     

'Good Faith' in the WTO Jurisprudence - Necessary Balancing Element or an Open Door to Judicial Activism?

The purpose of the article is two-fold: first, it seeks to clarifyand structure those contexts in which the principle of goodfaith has entered the WTO jurisprudence; and second, it presentsan analysis of the potential effects and risks accompanyingthis entrance, such as the allegation of judicial activism onthe part of the panels or the Appellate Body and the viabilityof a distinction between violation and non-violation cases.It attempts to define the framework within which a suitableconcept for the application of good faith must be found andexplores the conclusion that thus far the Appellate Body hasapplied good faith with the necessary caution. However, it cautionsthe necessity of avoiding an overbroad use of the concept andmandates the requirement for the judicial bodies to articulatemore clearly the content attributed to the concept in a particularcase and the legal consequences thereof than it has done thusfar. Finally this article urges the judicial bodies to avoidthe idea of an abstract obligation of good faith that adds somethingto the obligation under the WTO Agreements. This would accordwith the traditional international law understanding of whatthe application of the good faith principle implies.     

知识产权刑事保护的贡献与立法完善--解读《关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》

最高人民检察院、最高人民法院于2004年11月11日联合颁行的<关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释>(以下简称解释),针对我国知识产权刑事司法保护严重滞后的实际,作出若干具体界定,增强了司法实践的可操作性,是一个贡献.但侵犯知识产权犯罪中还有若干问题,远非一个司法解释所能解决,还需要立法的不断完善.     

全球化时代的知识产权犯罪及其防治

当今世界许多国家都在采取不断修订国内知识产权法和制定合适的知识产权保护政策等手段,以适应国际经济发展以及国际竞争的需要。本文分析了我国知识产权犯罪的现状和特点,并从知识产权自身的特点、我国的知识产权制度、经济、文化和法制等方面对我国的知识产权犯罪原因进行剖析,在此基础上提出我国知识产权犯罪的防治措施。     

商标侵权惩罚性赔偿的制度构建

我国《商标法》2013年第三次修改时首次在知识产权领域引入惩罚性赔偿责任。实证分析表明,惩罚性赔偿在商标侵权诉讼中适用甚少且适用不规范的问题突出,未能充分发挥其遏制侵权行为的预期作用。究其原因,主要存在适用条件不明确、赔偿基数难确定、程序保障不充分等问题。为规范适用,充分发挥惩罚性赔偿的作用,需要从以下四个方面完善其制度构建:一是强化程序保障;二是明确适用条件;三是完善赔偿数额的计算;四是厘清惩罚性赔偿与法定赔偿的关系。     

On rights and responsibilities

Rights are commonly linked to responsibilities. One commonly hears remarks about the rights and responsibilities of teachers, parents, students, etc. This linking together of the two is the topic of this paper. The paper is divided into four sections. In the first section I distinguish three accounts of the relation between rights and esponsibilities any of which we could have in mind when linking the two together, and I single out the third account for further study. Unlike the other two, it seems to offer fresh material for the theory of rights. In the second section I develop this material. I explicate the general relation between rights and responsibilities as this third account represents it, and I specify the grounds for attributing such a relation to them. My aim here is to elucidate a conception of rights that certain legal and political rights can be taken to exemplify and that has been ignored or obscured in recent work in the theory of rights. In the last two sections I turn my attention to human rights. I argue in Section III that Locke's theory of natural rights can be interpreted as upholding the conception of rights elucidated in the preceding section, and I consider and criticize in Section IV an account of the relation between certain human rights and responsibilities that comes from Joel Feinberg's distinction between mandatory and discretionary rights. The arguments of these two sections are meant to strengthen the case for making room in the theory of rights for the conception elucidated in Section II.     

Sanctions on digital platforms: Balancing proportionality in a modern public square

This paper asks which legal tools digital operators could use to manage colliding rights on their platforms in a digitalised and transnational space such as the Internet. This space can be understood as a “modern public square”, bringing together actions in the digitalised world and their interactions with actual events in the physical world. It is then useful to provide this space with a discursive framework allowing for discussing and contesting actions happening on it. In particular, this paper suggests that two well-known legal concepts, proportionality and sanctions, can be helpfully articulated within that discursive framework. In a first step, proportionality, a justificatory tool, is often used to suggest a way for managing colliding rights. This paper argues that for proportionality to be useful in managing colliding rights on digital platforms, its role, scope and limits need to be better framed and supplemented by an overall digital environment which can feed into the proportionality test in an appropriate way. This can be provided, thanks to a second step, namely labelling in law the actions digital operators take as sanctions. Sanctions are the reactions organised by digital operators to bring back social order on the platforms. The labelling of these reactions under the legal category of “sanctions” offers a meaningful tool for thinking about what digital operators do when they manage colliding rights by blocking or withdrawing contents and/or accounts. As different types of sanctions can be distinguished, differentiated legal consequences, especially in relation to managing colliding rights, can be identified. Here the role played by the proportionality test can be distinguished depending on the type of sanctions. In any case, for sanctions and proportionality to help address colliding rights on the modern public square, a discursive framework needs to be developed, which depends on the existence of relevant meaningful communities engaging in reflecting on the use of sanctions and proportionality.     

Human genome and protection of human rights in Croatia.

In the context of the human rights, human genome should be analyzed on two different levels. First one is a global macro level mostly determinated by global international documents and the concept of the human genome as a common biological heritage of all human beings. The second level is a private micro level of every human individual whose human genome is expressed by specific DNA "bar code". Information of that personal identity card should be strictly protected through the legal instruments for the protection of privacy rights. The aim of this paper is to analyze if and how human rights are protected within the legal framework and the practice of DNA testing in Croatia.     

Permissions, Principles and Rights. A Paper on Statements Expressing Constitutional Liberties

Abstract. In the first part of the paper the authors analyze how the distinction between mandatory rules, principles in the strict sense and policies can be understood in structural terms and in terms of reason for action. In the second part, they attempt to clarify which kind of legal provisions embrace constitutional statements recognizing liberty rights are.     

Deon in Deontics

Abstract.
The starting point of deontic logic is the distinction between non-normative necessity and normative necessity. The first part of the paper shows that the distinction between normative necessity and non-normative necessity occurs already in Aristotle's Orgunon . The second part of the paper makes a further distinction within normative deon itself: The distinction between deontic deon and anankastic deon . Anankastic deon behaves differently from deontic deon in a very important respect: Deontic indifference has no anankastic counterpart.     

Self‐Determination and Sovereignty over Natural Resources

This article makes the normative case for a differentiated approach to the sovereignty of states over natural resources. In the first half of the article, drawing on the example of the Yasuní‐ITT‐Initiative, I will argue that countries commit a moral wrong when they exploit natural resources for their own benefit (and to the detriment of the climate), but that they have the moral right to do so given the current structure of the international system. In the second half of the article, I address the question of whether states' rights over natural resources can be justified. Central to my argument will be the distinction between “control rights” and “income rights.” Only control rights, I will argue, can be justified as inherently tied to collective self‐determination.     

自由与民主:宪法诉讼的价值理念探幽

自由是宪法诉讼的核心价值 ,自由价值之中镌刻着深刻的民主价值思想。宪法诉讼的自由价值表现在 :1 矫正和修饰多数形成机制本身所存在的瑕疵 ,弥合宪法既定约束和现实多数之间的冲突 ,拓展宪法中关于自由范围和内容的规定 ;2 维护公民的“反向自由” ,防御政府的“正向侵犯” ;确认公民的“正向自由” ,救济立法缺位而引起的权利虚置 ,最终实现公民“反向自由”和“正向自由”的结合。宪法诉讼自由价值的民主性表现在如下层面 :1 宪法诉讼机制对自由价值的诉求和保障实现了民主的现代转型 ,即由古代的纯粹民主向现代的自由民主之转变 ;2 反向自由的宪法定位和正向自由的个案满足使民主和自由之间保持了持久的张力和不断的平衡 ,从而使自由主义民主具备了得以实现的现实基础。     

论知识产权侵权归责原则

对于知识产权侵权归责原则目前存有三种学说,认为知识产权侵权归责原则应当依据不同的场合确定.对于权利人要求行为人仅承担停止知识产权侵权行为的民事责任,则无须证明行为人有无过错,只有在法律有规定的特定场合,才必须证明行为人具有过错,此乃以无过错责任为原则,以过错责任原则为例外的归责原则;若权利人要求行为人承担损害赔偿责任,则必须证明行为人的过错,只有在法律规定的特定场合,才无须证明行为人的过错,即以过错责任为原则,以无过错责任为例外.