网络交易合同的行政规制——以《深圳市网络交易合同规则》为样本

"互联网+"是互联网与传统行业融合发展的新的经济形态,互联网经济的存在和发展是以网络交易合同为基础,全国试点项目《深圳市网络交易合同规则》专门针对网络交易合同的订立和履行、信息存储和保密等具体规则,通过规范明确网络交易合同的权利义务关系,从行政规制的法治维度促进我国电子商务行业和互联网经济的健康发展。《规则》旨在构建透明、安全的网络交易环境,并将政府主导的第三方存储机构引入合同行政监管及纠纷在线解决,从而充分保障消费者和经营者的合法权益。《规则》的实施表明其仍然存在一定的问题,在总结提炼实践经验的基础上,需要继续完善相关的规则内容,更好地为国家电子商务立法提供规范蓝本。     

国家工商行政管理总局关于处理侵害消费者权益行为的若干规定

第一条　经营者提供商品或者服务,应按照法律法规的规定、与消费者的约定或者向消费者作出的承诺履行义务。经营者与消费者有约定或者经营者向消费者作出承诺的,约定或者承诺的内容有利于维护消费者合法权益并严于法律法规强制性规定的,按照约定或者承诺履行;约定或者承诺的内容不利于维护消费者合法权益并且不符合法律法规强制性规定的,按照法律法规的规定履行。第二条　经营者发现其提供的商品或者服务存在严重缺陷,即使正确使用商品或者接受服务仍然可能对人身、财产安全造成危害的,应当立即停止销售尚未售出的商品或者停止提供服务,并报…     

合同中格式条款的立法规制初探

在现实生活中,如何在遵循合同自由的前提下,对格式条款加以有效规制,使经济上的强者,不能借合同自由之名压榨弱者,从而维护合同正义和消费者的合法权益,是现代合同法所面临的艰巨任务。本文从合同立法规定为切入点探讨了这一问题。     

电子商务合同主体地位与法律关系研究——以淘宝网C2C交易模式为例

电子商务合同具有合同主体虚拟化、交易介质无纸化等特殊法律品格,对传统法律形成了一定冲击。淘宝网等网络服务提供者为作为合同当事人的经营者与消费者提供了电子媒介支持,成为C2C交易中不可或缺的第三方。淘宝网与经营者、消费者分别通过订立网络服务协议,形成服务关系,对因自身过错或违反法定义务造成的损失应当承担赔偿责任。     

论电子合同中仲裁条款的效力

文章对两个主要的电子合同——拆封授权合同和点击合同中的仲裁条款进行了分析，认为被提供格式合同方要有预先审视的机会和明示同意，而且协议的仲裁条款优先。如果当事人当初接受了格式合同，而后来由于其他原因，致使该格式合同变更或无效时，根据仲裁条款自治理论，不影响该格式合同中仲裁条款的效力。     

我国消费者权益保护法中的惩罚性赔偿问题研究

在商品交易的过程中，经营者为了追求更好的利润，会尽可能压缩生产成本，这有利于精细化生产，资源的有效利用，但如果盲目追求利润则会侵害消费者的合法权益。消费者是交易双方的弱势方，不法经营者在利益的趋使下，往往不会进行诚信经营，利用消费者在信息、资金、技术上的匮乏来侵害消费者的合法权益。而随着消费者维护自身权益意识的增强，消费者和经营者的利益冲突日益尖锐。为了平衡双方的利益传统，维护作为弱势方消费者的合法权益，我国于1993年颁布了《消费者权益保护法》，建立了惩罚性赔偿制度。     

“最终解释权”寿终正寝保护了消费者

国家工商总局日前发布《合同违法行为监督处理办法》，加强对经营者利用“霸王条款”损害消费者合法权益行为的约束，类似“本公司拥有最终解释权”等条款被列为违法。“办法”还对经营者利用合同格式条款免责、排除消费者权益等行为做出相应规定。（10月21日《山东商报》）     

合同债权与仲裁条款转让的再审视——基于实体法、程序法和冲突法的视角

合同转让时,尤其是合同权利转让时仲裁条款是否随之转让的问题,是近年来国际商事仲裁领域的一个重要话题。目前,国内理论界的主流观点以及司法实践支持仲裁条款自动转让。但仲裁条款自动转让的理论依据并不充分,也未解决所有问题,而且对于仲裁条款转让的论证仅仅限于国内法上的视角,并未考虑国际合同转让中仲裁条款的效力和相关的法律冲突与法律适用等问题。本文旨在从实体法、程序法和冲突法的多维角度,进一步探讨合同仲裁条款转让的理论和实践问题,并对当前国内外的立法与实践进行评判,以期进一步完善我国国内的法制和实践。     

用法律利器打掉“霸王条款”的“霸气”

国家工商总局今年初发出通知，要求进一步遏制消费领域“霸王条款”现象，将在全国组织开展“整治利用合同格式条款侵害消费者合法权益专项行动”。 所谓“霸王条款”．就是一些经营者单方面制定的逃避法定义务、减免自身责任的不平等格式合同、通知、声明和店堂告示或者行业惯例等，限制消费者权利．严重侵害群众利益。     

浅论网络购物的法律规制

互联网的高速发展,网络购物已经成为很多人的消费方式。从法律规制的视角探究网络购物中存在的问题,对于充分发挥网络购物的优势,规范经营者的行为,维护消费者的权益,具有重大的经济、社会意义。     

克制和应对“碎片化”:WTO协定与多边环境和人权协定规范整合的司法路径

WTO协定在应对环境贸易争端和人权贸易争端时的贸易价值优先取向加剧了国际法的"碎片化"和"不成体系"问题。为克制和应对国际法的"碎片化",促进WTO协定与多边环境和人权协定的规范整合,《维也纳条约法公约》第31(3)(c)条可作为整体解释方法的条约依据运用于WTO协定的司法解释中,但这需要专家组和上诉机构对条约"解释"和条约"适用"做出革新的认识,将整体解释方法作为自治的条约解释方法在人权和环境贸易争端中适用,而不是陷于第31(3)(c)条所述之当事国为"条约当事国"还是"争端当事国"之争。     

The Design of Environmental Regimes: Social Construction, Contextuality, and Improvisation

While much of the literature on environmental regimes has focused on effectiveness, this article takes a new look at a lesser-studied topic, the evolution of regime design. Understanding how regimes differ in design, and how various factors and processes shape such design, is important if we are to more carefully craft these regimes. We should also pay close attention to the formative role of social construction and context. Focusing on transboundary marine programs, we see that their designs basically follow a common template, namely that of the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) Regional Seas Programme. However, the action of context (i.e., local actors and political processes) can modify these designs away from the common template. The extent to which these programs begin to differentiate from each other may be an important sign of program maturity and responsiveness to context. In this article, we examine a set of transboundary marine programs to uncover what the important dimensions of differentiation are. Then, we focus on one specific program, the SSME (Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion) and closely trace how its specific form and organization came about. The analysis is informed by a model of institutional coherence that portrays institutions as the product of multiple generative mechanisms (e.g., social construction, ecological fit, and others). While it is premature to make definite judgments about the relative merits of competing regime designs, the work provides us with a new mode of analysis that can provide helpful directions for institutional assessment.     

Academic patents and materials transfer agreements: substitutes or complements?

U.S. universities and academic medical centers long have been important performers of research in the life sciences, but their role as a source of patented intellectual property in this field has changed significantly in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The expanded presence of formal intellectual property rights within the academic biomedical research enterprise has occasioned numerous expressions of concern from scholars, policymakers, and participants. One widely expressed fear involves the effects of patenting on the conduct of the scientific research enterprise. There is also considerable concern over the possible role of Materials Transfer Agreements (MTAs) in raising research “transaction costs”. On the other hand, others suggest that the contractual structure provided by MTAs may reduce transaction costs and facilitate exchange. This paper undertakes a preliminary analysis of the role of MTAs in the biomedical research enterprise at the University of Michigan, a significant patenter and licensor of biomedical intellectual property. We examine the relationship among invention disclosures, patenting, licensing, and the presence or absence of an MTA. Although data limitations make any conclusions tentative, our analysis suggests that the increased assertion of property rights by universities through MTAs does not appear to impede the commercialization of university research through patenting and licensing.

WTO协定下美国贸易权利论——以美国对中国实施“双轨制反补贴措施”为视角

美国一方面对中国适用反补贴税法，另一方面通过WTO争端解决机制控告中国的禁止性补贴措施之做法，说明美国正在积极行使WTO协定下的贸易权利。应当从美国联邦宪法与国际法之双重视角把握贸易权利之性质并将其分成实体性市场准入权利与程序性贸易救济权利两大类，唯此才能理解美国对中国实施“双轨制反补贴措施”之实质。对美国正在推行的以贸易权利为导向的对华贸易政策，中国必须用自己的贸易救济权利加以对抗。     

WTO争端解决中“规则冲突”的概念界定

无论是在国际公法中,还是在WTO争端解决中,如何界定"规则冲突"的概念,都是一个悬而未决、难以确定的问题。在国际公法和WTO争端解决中,关于规则冲突的概念,都存在定义的广义与狭义之争。在国际公法中,比较流行的是狭义的冲突定义,不承认权利可能与义务或禁止相冲突;在WTO争端解决实践中,究竟是应该采用狭义的还是广义的规则冲突的定义,目前尚未有定论。然而,狭义的冲突定义在法律上是不恰当的,并且导致自相矛盾,因此,在WTO争端解决中,关于规则冲突的狭义定义是不可取的,必须首选一个广泛的定义,把允许与义务或禁止之间冲突的情况,即矛盾的冲突,也视为构成规则冲突。     

Collusion and Facilitating Practices: A New Perspective in Antitrust Analysis

A systematic revision of the notion of facilitating practices is put forward in this paper, with the purpose of relaxing the long-debated tension between economic and legal perspectives on oligopoly. Whereas the law knows of just one collusive illegal conduct, namely agreements, in economic theory the focus on internal enforcement makes the distinction between agreements and other behaviour resulting in the collusive outcome irrelevant. However, the tension may be relaxed, at least in a number of relevant circumstances, provided the focus of competition law shifts from straightforward co-ordination on market strategies to the firms' concerted efforts in the design and implementation of given organisational arrangements of the oligopolistic industry, to which an anticompetitive object can be attached. The theoretical analysis is extensively supported by examples drawn from some recent decisions of the European Commission and the Italian Competition Authority.     

国际公法在WTO争端解决中的作用与应用

WTO法是在国际公法的大背景中创制的,WTO协定不是存在于一个不受一般国际法影响的制度中。WTO法从来就不是一个封闭的、自给自足的法律制度,WTO规则是更广泛的国际公法内容的一部分,它在国际公法的框架内运作,并不是脱离国际公法的法律子系统。至少在解释的层面,它们总是会有某种程度的互动。国际公法可为WTO规则提供规范背景,有助于WTO无具体规定的某些方面的运作或提供解释性指导。在解释WTO协定的必要范围内,专家组和上诉机构有权使用或考虑其他条约、习惯和一般法律原则。但是,它们并非作为法律适用。在WTO争端解决中,其他国际法规则的作用是有限的、辅助的。     

论投资协议中的稳定条款——兼谈中国投资者的应对策略

中国投资者在海外投资中面临着诸多政治风险,订立稳定条款是防范政治风险的有效方法之一。该条款的作用体现在对相关法律制度的＂稳定＂。但学界对该条款的效力还有争议,存在肯定说、否定说和有条件肯定说三种观点,仲裁实践也对这类条款作出了不同解释。通过比较可以看出,稳定条款有效,但其效力主要是体现在为投资者进行违约索赔提供依据。中国投资者欲有效利用稳定条款防范政治风险,应注意以下问题：明确规定欲禁止事项、明确＂同意＂的形式和条款的持久效力、明确稳定条款的适用对象以及选择国际法作为合同的适用法律。     

VIE协议在我国的法律效力及其监管完善

VIE协议控制架构利用我国相关监管法律法规尚不完善的条件,企图巧妙地规避相关部门的监管,但是VIE协议控制架构并非无懈可击,原因在于当事人虽然通过VIE协议所搭建的协议控制架构未必会因为违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定而被判无效,但非常可能因符合合同法关于合法形式掩盖非法目的的特征而被审批机关认定为无效。因此,建议相关主管机关应当尽快通过立法明确VIE协议控制行为的法律范畴,并明确其适用的范围,建立境内监管机构与境外监管机构沟通机制,这样,才能将VIE协议控制机构纳入法律监管范围。     

Burden Sharing and Fairness Principles in International Climate Policy

One of the major challenges facing participants in the global climate change negotiations is to find a scheme of burden sharing that can be accepted as "fair" by all or at least most governments. In this article we first explore which basic principles of fairness seem to be sufficiently widely recognized to serve as a normative basis for such a scheme. We then examine a set of proposals for differentiating obligations that have been submitted by governments in the negotiations leading up to the Kyoto Protocol to see which principles have been honored. In the concluding section we discuss the implications of our analysis for the design of more specific burden sharing rules.