A Full Stop to Amnesty in Argentina: The Simon Case

In Simón, the Argentine Supreme Court held that two amnestylaws, adopted in the late 1980s in order to shield authors ofserious human rights violations committed during the so-called‘Dirty War’ (1976–1983), were unconstitutionaland void. Although the Argentine Congress had already repealedthe two laws in 2003, uncertainty about the validity of thisparliamentary decision had led to some controversy. With itsdecision in Simón, the Supreme Court puts an end to thelegal uncertainty concerning the prosecution of serious humanrights violations committed under the military regime and definitivelyclears the path for judicial actions against their authors.Setting aside deeply rooted national legal principles —such as statutory limitations, the principle of legality andamnesties — the Argentine Supreme Court has confirmedthe role of human rights principles and of public internationallaw in general in dealing with the most heinous crimes againsthumanity.     

Time and Transcendence: Narrating Higher Authority at the Caribbean Court of Justice

This article examines the relationship between time and authority in courts of law. Newness, in particular, poses an obstacle to a court's efforts to establish authority because it tethers the institution to a timeline in which the human origins of the court and the political controversies preceding it are easily recalled. Moreover, the abbreviated timeline necessarily limits the body of legal authority (namely, the number of judgments) that could have been produced. This article asks how a court might establish its authority when faced with such problematic newness. Based on extensive ethnographic research at the Caribbean Court of Justice, I demonstrate how the staff and judges at this relatively young tribunal work to create a narrative in which the Court transcends its own troublesome timeline. They do this by attempting to construct a time‐transcendent principle of Caribbeanness and proffering the Court as a manifestation of this higher authority. The Court's narrative of its timelessness, however, is regularly challenged by far more familiar tales of its becoming, suggesting that in this court, as in all courts, the work of building and maintaining authority is ongoing.     

中国法院的量刑程序改革

由最高法院推进的量刑程序改革目前正在全国部分法院进行试点。试点方案遵循依法、合理性与可操作性兼顾、公正与效率兼顾等原则,根据不同类型案件的特点,尝试采用不同的方法将量刑纳入法庭审理程序,以保障量刑活动的相对独立性。当前,我国的量刑程序改革面临着一些现实的问题和困难,同时,法院自身的特点决定了由其推动的量刑程序改革也存在一定的局限性。     

Oriental medicine professionals' duty to inform patients

Oriental medicine has constituted a significant portion of health care in Korea, but discussion regarding the legal duties of Oriental medicine professionals has been marginalized. This article proposes the first step in discussing the duty of Oriental doctors and pharmacists to inform their patients about the medicine they provide. It begins by introducing the only decision the Supreme Court of Korea has made regarding the legal obligation of Oriental medicine professionals, where the Court held that the Oriental medicine retailer had a duty to provide information about the medicine being sold. This article supports that decision of the Supreme Court and further argues that other primary providers of Oriental medicine-Oriental doctors and pharmacists-should also bear the duty to inform. The conclusion is driven from the fundamental principle of the Korean Constitution: that everyone is entitled to the right to self-determination. In discussing the scope of information doctors and pharmacists should provide, this article notes the unique features of Oriental medicine used in Korea. The author concludes that Oriental doctors and pharmacists should inform their patients of the nature and effect of the medicine being provided, detailed usage instructions, potential risks associated with the medicine, and information regarding combined use with conventional medicine. As for restorative Oriental medicine, doctors and pharmacists should particularly provide instructions regarding its unique restorative purpose.     

SURROGACY IN JAPAN: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR PARENTAGE AND CITIZENSHIP

Japan has not yet regulated assisted reproductive technology by law. This lack of rules and regulations leaves to the courts the solution of numerous controversies, and puts patients in a situation of considerable uncertainty about their rights. First, the article uses a Supreme Court case on foreign surrogacy to discuss how courts should decide when there is a conflict between existing laws and the best interest of the child. Then, after describing the current situation and trends of surrogacy in Japan, the article examines a potential problem of coherence in prohibiting surrogacy and at the same time allowing adoption by the intended parents.     

“债随物走原则”的重构与发展——企业重大资产出售中的债权人保护

最高人民法院在《改制司法解释》中规定了”债随物走原则”，但由于错误解释了其理论基础，该原则在适用中存在诸多缺陷。尽管最高人民法院最近对该原则有所发展，但仍不尽如人意。《改制司法解释》第6条的理论基础为对优惠性清偿的遏制，随着《企业破产法》第32条的生效，该条在中国实践中已无存在必要。虽然《改制司法解释》第7条的适用范围被明确为针对恶意逃债的欺诈行为，却缺乏对欺诈的具体认定标准。借鉴美国法中继受人责任制度的经验，可确立第7条适用中界定欺诈的客观标准，并改进救济手段；并可发现中国法律中缺乏在企业资产并购中对未来债权人的保护制度。扩大第7条的适用范围，可以打击所有企业资产并购中对债权人的欺诈行为。中国还需要通过建立继受人责任制度，以保护在资产并购中可能受损的未来债权人。     

国际法不禁止即为允许吗?——"荷花号"原则的当代国际法反思

"国际法不禁止即为允许"这一论断起源于国际常设法院1927年"荷花号"案件的判决,又称"荷花号"原则."荷花号"原则被公认为实在国际法的结构性原则,但在理论和实践中争议极大.本文通过考察国际法院实践和学者学说,指出"荷花号"原则并非抽象的绝对原则,而只是对有限范围的特定事项有效,即只适用于主权国家处理其领土管辖范围内的内政和外交事务.第二次世界大战之后,国际合作的深化、国际组织的广泛建立和人权保护的国际化在很大程度上限制了主权国家的自由.随着全球化和各国相互依赖的加深,"荷花号"原则作为国际法原则越来越不足以有效调整国家间关系和约束大国权力的滥用."荷花号"原则的弱化同时也意味着实在国际法学说的衰落.     

Parental Child Abduction in Singapore: The Experience of a Non-Convention Country

This article gives an exploratory picture of the landscape oninternational parental child abduction cases in a non-HagueConvention country, Singapore. It presents data and analyseson unpublished cases and materials in the past five years fromthe Singapore Family Court Registry (SFCR) and discusses theways in which the disputes are resolved (or unresolved) withoutthe machinery of the Hague Convention. It also examines thewelfare principle in the context of cross-border child abductionas well as how a non-Convention country can cooperate in theelimination of child abduction while applying the welfare principle.     

日本涉外民商事管辖权制度初探

日本法院分为四级简易法院、地方法院、高等法院和最高法院。《日本民事诉讼法》中的许多规则用于确定国际管辖权问题都不是很恰当,判例在国际民商事管辖权领域里起着相当重要的作用。最高法院在1981年10月16日做出的判决是关于日本法院国际管辖权的指导性判决,它确立了国际民商事管辖权的一般标准,即“正义和合理”标准。管辖权的排除主要表现在以下方面法院选择协议、仲裁协议以及主权和外交豁免。在实践中,下级法院创设了有关国际管辖权的一项规则,即“特殊情势主义”。对于外国的未决诉讼、不方便法院原则、择地行诉和禁诉命令制度,日本的立法或实践以及学者的观点富有特色。     

论俄罗斯宪法法院对公民基本权利的保障

宪法诉讼是现代保障公民基本权利最为有效的方式。在俄罗斯,履行宪法诉讼职能的机构是宪法法院。实践中,宪法法院主要依托宪法诉愿制度,适用蕴含比例原则的俄罗斯宪法第55条第3款作为审查基准保障公民基本权利。此外,宪法法院还常在判决中援引国际条约和欧洲人权法院判例,其目的是用先进的权利保障标准来要求和促进俄罗斯的公民基本权利保障。     

The rule of law as the lodestar of the European Convention on Human Rights: The Strasbourg Court and the independence of the judiciary

The rule of law is a constitutional principle under the European Convention on Human Rights. Throughout its history, the rule of law has been the lodestar guiding the development of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In recent years, the normative impact of this principle has been increasing in the case-law of the Court, in particular in cases dealing with the independence of the judiciary. The article discusses the conceptual core of the rule of law under the Convention system as a fundamental component of “European public order”. Subsequently, the three-dimensional normative status of the rule of law is explored as well as the Court's statement that the principle is “inherent in all the Articles of the Convention”. On this basis, an in-depth analysis is undertaken of the application in recent Strasbourg case-law of the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental organic component of the rule of law. Finally, the author reflects on the “symbiotic” relationship in the field of judicial independence between the Strasbourg Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union.     

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions' policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation's High Court or to an individual justice influences the public's agreement with the Court's rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill.     

论保险代位求偿权的法律性质

保险代位求偿权是财产保险的一项重要法律制度,源自赔偿合同原则。财产保险合同本质上是一种赔偿合同,如果被保险人所遭受的财产损失,已通过保险合同得到补偿,那么,被保险人因该损失而在法律上可获得的减轻或弥补损失的救济和利益便应归保险人,否则,被保险人就可能获得过量补偿而诱发道德风险。中国保险法在借鉴英国海上保险法保险代位求偿制度的基础上,将保险代位求偿权定性为法定债权转让,并考虑到中国的实际情况,通过最高人民法院的司法解释对保险代位求偿权作出了延伸保护。     

风险自负原则在我国学校体育伤害中的合理适用

作为一项重要的减免责事由,风险自负原则更适应体育活动的特点,适合解决体育运动伤害归责问题。当前,我国学校体育伤害面临着过失认定不明、责任划分不清、公平原则过度适用等问题,以风险自负解决学校体育纠纷,具有特别意义。在学校体育伤害中正确适用风险自负原则,需分清固有风险的范围,明确各方责任,采用以客观标准为准则、辅之主观标准的过失认定方法,并将公平责任类型化,进而平衡学校、家长、学生三方的权益。     

论集中审理原则与合议庭功能的强化——兼评《关于人民法院合议庭工作的若干规定》

集中审理原则是现代审判程序的一项基本原则。其内容主要包括 :一个案件组成一个审判庭进行审理 ;法庭成员不可更换 ;集中证据调查与法庭辩论 ;庭审不中断并迅速作出裁判。我国立法尚未规定集中审理原则 ,为了强化合议庭的功能 ,我国急需确立集中审理原则。最高人民法院《关于人民法院合议庭工作的若干规定》体现了该原则的精神。应进一步建立法官、人民陪审员更换与庭审更新制度 ,实现证据调查与法庭辩论的集中化 ,并应实行审判合一以及提高当庭宣判率。     

国际法院解释领土条约的路径、方法及其拓展

领土主权属于一国的根本问题。由于部分领土条约相关条款过于原则或模糊不清,当事方会产生条约解释上的国际争端。通常,国际法院依据《维也纳条约法公约》第31、32条规定的解释规则进行阐释。但是,领土条约具有与一般条约不同的特性,这一特性也决定了其解释方法的特殊性。条约解释与争议领土主权的归属存在密切关系,不当解释会严重损害当事国的领土主权。正是出于此顾虑,国际法院过于严格遵照条约文本语言表述的精确性,但在司法实践中又出现一定的矛盾与反复,甚至在个案中弱化条约解释的价值,转而以有效统治作为判案的法理依据。国际法院的做法动摇了国际社会相关当事方将领土争端提交国际法院,采取法律方式解决纠纷的信心,值得关注和深入研究。     

No (,) More Bolam Please: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board concerned a negligent non‐disclose of certain risks involved in natural birth. The Supreme Court departed from Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital, which formerly governed negligent risk disclosure. A new test was adopted: risks that are material must be disclosed, the materiality of a risk to be decided by reference to a reasonable person in the patient's position, or where the medical professional should be reasonably aware a particular patient is likely to attach significance to that risk. The Court emphasised risk disclosure practices must focus on what the patient wants to know. Yet the Court's portrayal of this change as a development of Sidaway is questionable. The decision is problematic in its engagement with precedent, the new test's future implications and statements regarding therapeutic privilege. Despite rejecting Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee's relevance to risk disclosure, this case is likely to remain relevant.     

The European Court of Justice and the Rhetoric of Affirmative Action

The recent Marschall decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a principle giving precedence to women for promotions in the workplace seems promising for the future of affirmative action. At first glance, this decision seems to indicate that the ECJ has taken a different path, moving away from its earlier Kalanke decision which had jeopardised further development of affirmative action in the European Union. On a closer examination, both Kalanke’s sweeping ban of preferential treatment based on gender and Marschall’s new interpretation appear as discursive replies to the same dilemma: should the Court deny the normative objective of equality contained in EC law to generate meaning, thus turning equality into a mere formal principle and rendering judicial review trivial? Or should it embrace a substantive reading of the fundamental principle of equality between men and women, thus substituting the Court judgment for that of the legislature, and subverting the limits of the ECJ’s powers? The aim of this article is to analyse the ECJ’s rhetorical response to the complexities contained in affirmative action judicial review.     

More questions than answers? R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte Blood The Times 7th February 1997

The recent Court of Appeal decision in R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte Blood (1997), was an attempt to reconcile media driven support for a widow's desire to have a child using sperm obtained from her comatose husband immediately prior to his death. The Court of Appeal held that the written consent of the husband had not been obtained in respect to the storage of his sperm and this was contrary to the requirements of the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990. However in the present case it was right that once the sperm had been removed, it was preserved and stored pending a ruling as there appeared to be some uncertainty surrounding the situation. The Court also held that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority had failed to exercise its discretion correctly in refusing to give Mrs Blood permission to export the sperm to Belgium where the written consent of the donor to storage of gametes is not required. The Court of Appeal stated that there was no question of a precedent being set as this was a unique situation which should not arise again in the future.