论涉外遗嘱法律适用制度的发展趋势——兼论《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第32、33条的解释与完善

在遗嘱的法律适用制度领域存在两大趋势:一是在体例结构上采用继承与遗嘱分立模式下的遗嘱体例;二是在同一制与区别制的应用上采用同一制。《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第四章采用法定继承与遗嘱分立的体例结构,在实践中将导致遗嘱法律适用制度结构残缺。在处理遗嘱方式法律适用时,该法采纳了同一制,但弃用了1961年《海牙遗嘱处分方式法律冲突公约》中的住所和涉及不动产时的不动产所在地连接点,弱化了公约在遗嘱方式上倡导的尽量使遗嘱方式有效原则。此外,该法第33条遗嘱效力概念语义含糊,必然给法院的审判活动带来困扰。鉴此,我国相关职能部门应当就相关法条做合理解释,并在必要时对相关制度予以修订。     

论涉外遗嘱法律适用制度的发展趋势———兼论 《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第 32、33 条的解释与完善简

在遗嘱的法律适用制度领域存在两大趋势：一是在体例结构上采用继承与遗嘱分立模式下的“遗嘱”体例;二是在同一制与区别制的应用上采用同一制。《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第四章采用法定继承与遗嘱分立的体例结构,在实践中将导致遗嘱法律适用制度结构残缺。在处理遗嘱方式法律适用时,该法采纳了同一制,但弃用了1961年《海牙遗嘱处分方式法律冲突公约》中的“住所”和涉及不动产时的“不动产所在地”连接点,弱化了公约在遗嘱方式上倡导的尽量使遗嘱方式有效原则。此外,该法第33条“遗嘱效力”概念语义含糊,必然给法院的审判活动带来困扰。鉴此,我国相关职能部门应当就相关法条做合理解释,并在必要时对相关制度予以修订。     

动物福利保护之习惯法研究

动物福利权立法已经越来越受到人们的关注。但是,动物福利发展的重心不应仅是立法,也不应停留在法学和司法判决上,而应体现在在社会和市民观念本身。动物福利权立法应当注重自下而上的生态道德习惯之教化和自上而下强制法律的制约,二者相辅相成,自在调整。     

Clashing Rights, the Welfare of the Child and the Human Rights Act

Under the Human Rights Act so far there has been until very recently little judicial or even academic recognition of the difference between resolving clashes of Convention rights and addressing conflicts between utilitarian concerns and such rights. This article has chosen to illustrate that failure of recognition and to consider methods of resolving the conflict between rights, by concentrating on one particular clash of rights – that between media free speech under Article 10 and the privacy of children under Article 8. It argues for presumptive equality for the two rights and for conducting a 'parallel analysis' of their application to the circumstances of a particular case. It contends that therefore the principle that the child's welfare is paramount must be abandoned in its present form, as must the presumptive priority accorded to Article 10 where that principle is not found to apply.     

关于制定我国《动物福利法》的思考

在倡导人与动物和谐共处的当今社会,许多国家颁布了动物福利法。西方发达国家关于动物福利法的理论和实践已经日趋成熟。目前我国动物福利状况不容乐观,国民的动物保护意识比较淡薄,虐待动物的事件时有发生。而且我国动物保护法体系存在不少缺陷,动物福利立法仍处于空白状态。中国成为WTO成员国后,动物福利问题很可能成为新的贸易壁垒。因此我们应当在充分考虑本国实际情况的基础上,大胆吸收和借鉴国外先进的立法经验,适时制定一部富有时代特色和民族精神的《动物福利法》。这样不但能提高国民保护环境和爱护动物的意识,而且能为我国经济、社会的可持续发展注入新的动力,以适应全球环境保护发展趋势的要求。     

A Conception of Moral Rights and Its Application to Property and Welfare Rights*

Abstract
This article deals with the conceptual features and the rational justification of moral rights. For this purpose, the author starts with a common classification of rights, i.e., the distinction between rights in rem and rights in personam . He argues that rights of the first kind can be justified by a two-fold application of the principle of universalizability, while the latter are based on moral rules concerning special social relations, rules which themselves are founded on the principle of universalizability. This distinction, however, does not suffice to cover a further category of rights that play a very important role in social life, namely the rights of community membership, i.e., the particular rights that exist between the members of a social community. These rights cannot be derived from universalizability alone, but, instead, are based on the idea of social justice. This paper provides a short account of the main principles of social justice, and tries to apply them to property and welfare rights.     

福利行政调查权与受益人权利保障

作为一种特殊类型的行政调查形式,福利调查在福利领域发挥着重要的作用。通过多种形式的福利调查,公民得以享有一定的福利权益。但在福利调查的过程中,往往可能对公民的隐私等权益造成一定的侵犯。因此,行政机关在获得信息的同时,如何保障公民的权益,这无疑是未来行政调查研究的方向之一。     

论动物福利立法的限度及其定位——兼谈动物福利立法中动物的法律地位

从道德和道德法律化的角度看,给予动物福利其实就是科加人对动物的道德义务,而动物福利立法的实质便是把这种道德义务上升为法律义务,即实现动物道德的法律化。不过,动物并未就此获得法律主体地位,它只是一种"物格"弱于一般客体物的"准物"而已。由于道德法律化是有条件的,动物福利立法也应有限度,只有那些获得社会普遍认同和共同遵守的基本动物道德,才可通过立法程序上升为法律规范。对此,我们可用"利益关系分析法"和"利益层次分析法"来大致界定"基本动物道德"的范围;用自卫原则、对称原则、最少损害原则、分配正义原则以及补偿正义原则,来对动物福利立法进行较明确的定位,以妥善处理动物福利和人的利益的关系。     

Taking the Rights of Parents and Children Seriously: Confronting the Welfare Principle under the Human Rights Act

This article argues that resistance to the Human Rights Acthas built up in the context of disputes relating to childrenand that such resistance is founded in the attachment of thecourts to the welfare or paramountcy principle as currentlyconceived—the principle that the child’s welfareautomatically prevails over the rights of other family members.It argues that the failure to take account of Convention argumentscould only be a legitimate stance if there was no conflict betweenthe demands of the welfare principle and those of the Conventionguarantees, but that in fact the approach of the European Courtof Human Rights differs considerably from that of the UK courtssince it seeks to balance the rights of different family members.The article goes on to argue that, taking account of the Strasbourgstance and of the already established domestic recognition ofthe presumptive equality of competing qualified Convention rights,it is time to accept the adoption of a new model of judicialreasoning in the context of disputes over children—the‘parallel analysis’ or ‘ultimate balancingact’.