法权关系为什么是客观的社会存在——答孙国华教授和管仁林博士的质疑

本文从法和法律的本源和本体上论述法(社会自在的法权关系)与法律(制定法)的区别,指出由经济关系所派生和决定的法权关系(实际的权利义务关系),是自然形成的客观社会存在。法权关系(客观法)是经济基础与其上层建筑中的法律(主观法)之间的中介。经济关系、法(法权关系)与法律这三者之间,是本质内容、本质形式和外在形式的关系。     

“Not to Disclose Information Sources”: Journalistic Privilege Under Article 19 of ICCPR

International law took a significant step in recent years toward protection of journalists' sources and newsgathering processes. The international law journalistic privilege previously had been upheld by international tribunals, but it was not until 2011 that the United Nations Human Rights Committee adopted an interpretation of freedom of expression that included journalistic privilege. The presence of the privilege within freedom of expression, as recognized in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is important for several reasons. As part of freedom of expression, the privilege may not be overcome without a showing of necessity and proportionality, is not subject to a margin of appreciation, and is entitled to full realization by the 168 nations that have signed and ratified ICCPR.     

From the Field to the Courthouse: Should Social Science Research Be Privileged?

Social scientists need clarification about the extent to which the confidential aspects of their research are protected from compulsory disclosure in legal proceedings, and the extent to which they ought to be. Investigating the nature of social science research with an emphasis on researcher-participant relationships in ethnographic practice, I conclude that a qualified privilege would confer three major benefits on social science researchers: confidence that the government will not unnecessarily interfere with research, facilitation of improved researcher-participant relationships, and increased accuracy, thoroughness, and reliability of research data. I also discuss the development of privilege and confidentiality issues in practical research contexts through an examination of two criminal cases in which social science researchers refused to divulge the confidential information obtained in the course of research. Finally, I discuss the possible formulations of a scholarly research privilege. This is especially important because courts have cast social scientists as members of the larger community of academic or scholarly researchers with respect to these issues. Potential sources of protection include state journalist protection laws, federal common law, and federal statutory law. Evaluation of these sources and the case law to which they correspond suggests that developing common law privileges in state and federal jurisprudence is the most promising means of affording the confidential aspects of social science research legal protection. As researchers continue to press privilege     

特免权规则：美国的制度与实践——兼论特免权规则的普遍性与差异性及中国语境下特免权规则的确立

英美证据法上设立特免权规则的目的在于保障特定的国家政策和具有普遍性的价值观念。特免权规则不仅存在于英关法系国家，而且也存在于大陆法系国家。但我国法律并没有明确地确立任何特免权规则，因此，我们应当审慎地对待特免权规则的移植问题。对于那些体现全人类共同价值的特免权规则，应当毫不犹豫地加以移植；对于尚无生活基础的特免权规则，暂时可不予考虑；对于相应制度具有类似功效且在实践中尚无显著问题的领域，也可以维持现状。     

特免权规则:美国的制度与实践——兼论特免权规则的普遍性与差异性及中国语境下特免权规则的确立

英美证据法上设立特免权规则的目的在于保障特定的国家政策和具有普遍性的价值观念。特免权规则不仅存在于英美法系国家,而且也存在于大陆法系国家。但我国法律并没有明确地确立任何特免权规则,因此,我们应当审慎地对待特免权规则的移植问题。对于那些体现全人类共同价值的特免权规则,应当毫不犹豫地加以移植;对于尚无生活基础的特免权规则,暂时可不予考虑;对于相应制度具有类似功效且在实践中尚无显著问题的领域,也可以维持现状。     

The journalist's privilege for nonconfidential information in states with shield laws

Most scholarship on journalistic privilege has been devoted to the issues affecting the right of journalists to refuse to reveal the identities of sources to whom confidentiality has been promised. The only United States Supreme Court case and almost all activity in lower courts and legislatures on the question are aimed at resolving the problem of whether or under what circumstances journalists should be compelled to identify confidential sources. Almost all of the increasing numbers of subpoenas issued to journalists, however, are aimed at journalists' nonconfidential information. This article analyzes state shield laws and their adjudication, concluding that the state of the law is divided on whether and to what extent journalists attempting to protect nonconfidential information should enjoy a constitutional, common‐law or statutory privilege.     

Limiting the psychotherapist-patient privilege: the therapeutic potential

The author first explores the law of the psychotherapist-patient privilege along with the traditional rationale for the privilege. The results of studies challenging the assumptions upon which the privilege rests are summarized. Finally, the potential therapeutic advantages are explored. The author suggests that the absence of an absolute privilege might in fact prevent harmful behavior. Those patients who communicate to their therapists the desire or intent, for example, to commit a crime, might not act on their urges for fear of disclosure of the communication in a future criminal proceeding.     

Legal Advice Privilege and its Relevance to Corporations

This article considers whether the rationale for legal advice privilege applies to corporations. It examines the rationale for legal advice privilege in the aftermath of the disagreement between the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in the Three Rivers litigation, and argues that the rule of law rationale for advice privilege endorsed by the House of Lords is based largely on the needs and behavior of individuals. The paper examines the case for recognising advice privilege for corporations. Recent developments in corporate law and governance, especially in relation to directors' duties, have arguably reduced the need for a corporate privilege. Public and large private companies in particular already have sufficient incentives to obtain accurate legal advice about their affairs even without a privilege. There are also sound policy reasons for restricting the right of corporations to claim legal advice privilege given its costs to the administration of justice.     

No Confidence: Confidentiality,Ethics and the Law of Academic Privilege

The law recognizes several evidentiary privileges, including a qualified privilege recognized by statute or court precedent in forty-eight states and several federal circuits that allows journalists to protect confidential sources. Meanwhile, ethical practices for social science surveys require pledging confidentiality to respondents, a practice that can conflict with subpoenas and court orders requiring revelation of such information. Only a handful of court decisions have formally recognized a privilege for scholars similar to a reporters’ privilege, and an examination of the court decisions that have either ruled on or discussed the issue reveals that while many courts recognize the interests of scholars in confidentiality, most courts decline to recognize a legal privilege for researchers. Courts do, however, often limit disclosure to accommodate these concerns. The specific circumstances and rationales of these decisions are discussed and analyzed.     

The defence of therapeutic privilege in Australia

Therapeutic privilege is a defence that excuses a medical practitioner or other health professional from complying with the requirements of full disclosure to a patient in circumstances where it is reasonably considered that such disclosure would be harmful to that patient's health or welfare. Although the concept originated in the United States, the defence has been applied in Australia, and was specifically endorsed as part of Australian law by the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. However, there has been negligible application of the defence since that endorsement. This article examines the doctrine of therapeutic privilege in the present Australian medico-legal environment. After an examination of the concept and its three constituetent elements, the article canvasses the limited instances of judicial approval of the defence prior to Rogers v Whitaker. The author then analyses, by reference to reported and unreported case law, why the defence has been so narrowly interpreted since, such that it has come to occupy an almost untenable position in Australia's medical jurisprudence.     

证据法的基本权利保障取向

证据法的理性主义传统,既要求通过理性证明的方式去查明事实真相,而非诉诸神明和暴力;又不以追求真相为最高目的,而是将其视为实现正义的手段.这种理性传统,决定了法治国家证据制度具有求真、求善的双重功能,并将公正奉为首要价值,从而奠定了基本权利保障的价值取向.我国证据法学研究和证据制度建设正在经历从义务本位向权利本位转型,权...     

An organization's waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/ or the attorney work product protection to obtain leniency in federal court sentencing: what is the brouhaha all about?

The guidelines controlling the sentencing of organizations provide for the reduction in an entity's culpability score for self-reporting, cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility. What an organization must do in order to receive the reduction in culpability score changed dramatically in 2004 when additional language was added to Application Note 12 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Section 8C2.5(g) stating that "waiver of the attorney-client privilege and of work product protections is not a prerequisite to a reduction. ... However, in some circumstances waiver of the attorney-client privilege and of work product protections may be required in order to satisfy the requirements of cooperation." Following months of hearings and public comment, the United States Sentencing Commission reversed its position on whether a sentencing court should consider an organization's waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/or of the attorney work product protection in evaluating the organization's "cooperation" as a sentencing factor by proposing to retract the language added by the 2004 amendments. Although that proposal has become effective, it is yet to be determined what the response of the three branches of government will be on the issue of privilege waivers in the context of federal criminal law. This Article gives readers an overview of the development of the use of privilege waivers by organizations seeking credit for cooperation at the time of sentencing for federal crimes, the reaction of both corporations and their lawyers to the waiver issue, and the events leading up to the Commission's change of position.     

论行政合同中的行政主体特权

行政合同中的行政主体特权源于行政合同的行政性与公益性,本质在于实现行政管理目标。本文从探求行政合同特权产生的根源——天然性与必然性入手,对德、法的行政合同特权理论模式进行考量,对我国的行政特权制度与控权制度进行设计;同时,强调加强行政人员的伦理、道德建设的重要意义。     

英美诽谤法的特殊抗辩事由研究

英美诽谤法为实现保护言论自由和尊重个人名誉的平衡,设计了诸多精细的特殊抗辩事由,包括以真实性作为完全抗辩的依据;涉及公共利益的、基于事实的、真诚的公允评论;法律授予特殊场合的特权抗辩(绝对特权和受约制特权)及制定法规定的严格责任抗辩事由.这些抗辩事由使英美法诽谤法实现了法益平衡的目的.     

司法鉴定基本理论之再检讨

司法鉴定应当具有主体特殊性、对象专门性、启动被动性和结果科学性四个基本特征 ,为此 ,建立鉴定人资格确认和审查制度十分必要 ;限定鉴定对象的范围也应成为鉴定制度的要素。强调鉴定程序启动的被动性有利于保持鉴定的中立性 ,并划清鉴定权和司法权的界限 ;强调鉴定结果的科学性则有利于确定鉴定的效力制度。     

美国法上“记者”的含义

在美国各州,记者享有在法庭上拒绝作证的权利,因此,哪些人是记者,即法律上确定"记者"的含义非常重要。美国存在联邦和州两个法律体系。在联邦法律体系中,至今不承认记者有拒证权。而在各州的法律体系中,36个州和哥伦比亚特区存在保护记者拒证权的"盾牌法"。根据立法和判例,美国法律认为所有以从事大众传播为目的的媒体记者都可以是记者,无论是出版社、报刊、广播、电视还是互联网站、博客或者其他电子媒体。个人要成为实质上的记者必须具备两个条件:一是实际参与了将要发表或者已经发表的报道的调查与采访;二是在开始收集新闻的过程中就有将报道向公众传播的明确意图。记者也不总是那些已经发表了作品的人,对于有证据证明,其调查、采访、写作的目的是为了完成作品向大众传播,那么无论他处于调查、采访、写作的哪个阶段,他都是"记者",可以享受记者拒证权。     

和谐社会与法治取向

和谐社会下,法治才有存在的可能性。不同类型的和谐社会,产生不同的法治状况。中国传统社会下的法律只能够是保护贵族的特权和强化社会的不公,近代西方个人主义才有体现平等自由的法律。中国社会由传统向现代过渡,法律在传统与现代的冲突中挣扎,传统法治特质正在消失,西方现代法治特质尚未扎根。     

Democracy and Legitimacy in the Shadow of Purposive Competence

This article argues that the way EU competences are defined plays an important role in the social legitimacy problems of the EU. The fact that its powers are purposive compels the EU to privilege narrow functional goals and act in a highly focused way. This has the consequence that politics cannot be meaningful within the EU, since essential choices of direction are pre‐empted. It also has the consequence that EU law is over‐instrumental and lacks expressive qualities, alienating the public. Now that EU law is so broad, the same defects are being imposed increasingly on Member States. Without another form of conferred power, the legitimacy of the EU, and of law and government in Europe, will be increasingly undermined. The constitutional DNA, which has been a functional success for Europe, may also be its political nemesis.     

Challenging Civil Contempt: The Limits of Judicial Power in Cases Involving Journalists

Despite their assertion of a First Amendment or common law reporter's privilege in federal courts, journalists continue to face jail sentences and exorbitant fines for refusing to divulge their confidential sources when subpoenaed. Efforts to pass even a limited federal shield law have failed so far. This article offers another avenue to protect journalists—examining the roots of contempt law and policy to highlight limits on the contempt power of judges. It argues that because journalists are part of a group resting on steadfast moral and professional convictions, they may validly argue that confinement and excessive fines are improper sanctions. The article also suggests refinements in shield law proposals and other legislation to clarify the extent of judicial contempt power.     

亲属权利的法律之痛——兼论“亲亲相隐”的现代转化

中国古代"亲亲相隐"是一种亲情伦理立法,现代东西方主要国家法律都确认由亲属身份而自然获得的某些例外特权,这是一种亲属权利立法。我国现行法律在否定"亲亲相隐"的亲情伦理立法以后,却没有确立亲属权利立法原则,这种传统与现代的断裂导致诸多尴尬和悲剧,"佘祥林案"中佘母的不幸遭遇即为典型。本文阐释古代"亲亲相隐"亲情伦理立法和现代亲属权利立法的各自特点,论述法律确认亲属权利的必然性和迫切性,探讨古老"亲亲相隐"对确立我国现代亲属权利制度的正面价值及其在现代人权理念之下的创新转化。