宏观调控的可诉性之辨

主张宏观调控不具可诉性的观点,其实并未能准确地把握国家行为不可诉性的本质,也与法的可诉性内涵不符。宏观调控行为的可诉性所内涵的是宏观调控的法律责任。法院对宏观调控司法审查的内容并非是指宏观调控的内容及其结果,而是指出台的宏观调控决定是否与宪法或其上位法有冲突、是否违反了宏观调控的程序规范、是否损害在先的合法个人权益和集体权益等。宏观调控的可诉性可通过宏观调控立法的法律责任规范和宏观调控主体法律责任规范得到构建,并通过宏观调控行为的司法审查来实现。     

“质疑”宏观调控的可诉性——兼评《宏观调控行为的不可诉性探析》

法的可诉性是法保持客观公正地位的灵魂所在,也是现代法治国家和法治社会的基本要求.然“质疑”宏观调控的可诉性就是对公权力神圣化,将公权力至于“神坛”,缺乏相对监管机制,从而导致宏观调控所属的经济法部门也很难表现出一个独立的部门法.在既定的法律关系中确定各主体的权利义务是一部法律的主要内容.没有相应的责任追究机制,一部法律就可能落空,权利救济也很难落到实处.这种将政府行为游离在法律之外的行为,极易导致“集权人治”的后果,也有悖于法治的基本理论.虽然我国当下司法现状对实现宏观调控可诉性缺乏足够的能力,但是这并不影响宏观调控可诉性的本质.     

行政诉讼受案范围问题研究

一、关于可诉性行政行为的主体范围 所谓可诉性行政行为的主体范围,是指法律规定的,能够引起行政诉讼的,适格的行政主体的范围。根据行政诉讼法第二条的规定,可诉性行政行为的主体范围,仅为行政机关和行政机关工作人员。而最高人民法院关于执行《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》若干问     

浅析高校管理行为的司法审查

司法审查介入高校管理行为对学生的权利进行救济,是高校管理走向法治化的主要途径。本文试从高校学生管理行为的不可诉的弊端和赋予其可诉性两方面进行分析,解析了高校学生管理行为司法审查的正当性与实践意义。     

宏观调控法治化论纲

一、宏观调控应遵循的法治原则 寻找宏观调控法治化的原则应当从法治的一般原则、宏观调控行为的特征以及市场经济条件下国家权力的定位来切入,自从亚里士多德提出法治的定义以来,尽管法治的定义难以计数,但其核心内容仍是亚氏早已高扬的:法律得到普遍的服从。而大家服从的法律又是良法。法治是以法律为基础的,但其内容却是超法律的:法律的普遍性及其合理性。宏观调控作为政府行为具有非个案性、非单一性。宏观调控的形式可以是立法,也可以是作出决定(如提高利率)但是不得仅针对     

论可诉性是行政行为的本质属性

可诉性是指法律行为的可诉性,行政行为的可诉性是指行政主体作出的行政行为在一定条件下可诉诸法院司法审查的一种本质属性,这是判断行政行为的一个根本标准;过去,我国学界对行政行为特性的认识却忽视了这一点。可诉性是贯穿于行政行为与行政诉讼的一条红线,它使公民行政诉权的行使与法院对行政权的司法审查成为可能,具有普遍适用性。     

行政程序中间行为可诉性标准探讨——结合最高法院第69号指导案例的分析

最高法院第69号指导案例形式上提出了行政程序中间行为可诉性的新标准,但该标准并未改变行政行为成熟性的可诉性规则,秉持的仍然是行政程序中间行为原则上不可诉,只有对相对人权利义务产生实际影响的才可以纳入行政诉讼范围。实践中纷繁复杂的行政程序中间行为实践样态,需要结合个案把握该指导案例的适用标准,特别是该指导案例裁判要旨中的"且"字只具有强调意味,不能被其字面逻辑所迷惑,如此才能准确发挥该案例的指导价值。而且,第69号指导案例的实践意义远不仅仅在于明晰行政行为成熟性和可诉性的标准,更深远的价值在于引发诉讼类型化的进一步思考。     

谣言、政府辟谣及其规制

政府发布权威的辟谣信息并不能完全阻止谣言的传播,政府信息发布权行使须在法定的范围内,且政府对谣言的回应要遵循合目的性。规制政府辟谣具有很强的现实紧迫性,通过制定规范来促成其合法化、责任承担上明确"官谣"的可诉性、监督方式上的多元化来实现政府辟谣的法治化。     

抽象行政行为可诉性

本文对比了法治先进国家的抽象行政行为可诉性制度之后,以实行抽象行政行为可诉的必要性、可行性为基础,对我国建立抽象行政行为的可诉制度提出了相关见解。     

宏观调控行为的不可诉性再探

宏观调控行为的不可诉性是指宏观调控行为即宏观调控决策不具有可审查性。法院既不能撤销、变更或废止宏观调控行为,也不能判决宏观调控机关对宏观调控决策给受控主体造成的损害承担赔偿责任。承认宏观调控行为的不可诉性实质上是在承认"司法失灵"前提下的一种"司法克制主义"。宏观调控行为的不可诉性要求发展经济法的追责模式,建立宏观调控复议制度、政治责任制度和"经济法上的国家赔偿"制度。此外,宏观调控决策的程序还需优化,以更多的"法定"、更多的透明、更多的参与、更多的回应、更多的问责来制约和规范宏观调控权。     

双重可诉规则：进退之际

双重可诉规则的演变是侵权冲突法理论发展的枢纽所在。双重可诉规则试图融合侵权行为地法和法院地法这两个系属公式的优点,但不利于平等保护双方当事人的利益,而且有悖于现代侵权法的基本职能。放弃双重可诉规则,强化侵权行为地法的作用,是侵权冲突法发展和我国法律改革的方向,但对于涉外诽谤侵权和损害赔偿限额等问题,双重可诉规则仍有局部保留的价值。     

Macro-control power: from decentralization to control

Legal control of macroeconomic regulation power is a core proposition in the science of economic law, and is served as one of the key links to make macro-control (policies and measures implemented by the government to regulate the operation of market economy) ruled by law. Legal control of macroeconomic regulation power can be summarized into three methods: to acknowledge economic right of social agents (special interest groups, lobbies, and their representatives) by law; to safeguard economic power of social people (the public) by law; to decentralize macro-control power by law. By analysis, this article reaches the conclusion that the first method (to decentralize macro-control power by law) is the main method of legal control of macroeconomic regulation power. This is why it is necessary for China, in the transition period, to decentralize the macro-control power into the macro-control decision-making power, macro-control executive power, and macro-control supervision power in order to legally control macro-control power through mutual restraints and combined action.     

经济法对宏观调控权的规制——以房地产市场、证券市场调控为例

经济法是国家调节社会经济之法。宏观调控是国家调节三方式之一,宏观调控应以市场调节为基础,需要处理好国家与市场之间的关系,调控措施应当科学、合理。需要依法调控,用法律控制权力,防止滥用宏观调控权损害民众利益。宏观调控包括控制与引导、宏观与微观管理相结合,不能片面理解为"控制"、从紧,也不能把各种行政干预措施都当成宏观调控,借宏观调控之名行行政命令计划管理之实。     

建立我国民事诉讼审前准备程序的必要与建议

民事诉讼中的审前程序是开庭审理前的一个重要诉讼阶段,我国《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(下称《民诉法》)及最高法院的相关司法解释都对审前程序的相关制度做了规定。但这些规定较零散,不成体系,相互之间缺乏协调,甚至相互矛盾;又由于在司法实践中,各地法院情况不一,法官的理解、认知能力不一,导致在实践中操作也不一致。现在各地法院摸索创新出的许多民事审前程序规则实际上带有程序规则与实体规则存在的双重困惑:既不能保持已有的审前程序的正当性与效率性,又难以体现我国现有审判方式改革后所要求达到的公正与效率的目标。规范、统一审前准备程序,改变诉讼拖延和民事诉讼程序过程中规定散乱、执行标准不一的状况,是民事诉讼制度从改革走向完善,从宏观到微观的必然。     

Definition of "positional isomer" as it pertains to the control of schedule I controlled substances. Final rule

On May 25, 2006, DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which proposed the addition of a specific definition for the term "positional isomer" to allow for the systematic determination of which isomers of schedule I substances would be considered to be "positional," and therefore, subject to schedule I control. This rulemaking finalizes that definition. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations specify which hallucinogenic substances are considered schedule I controlled substances. The CSA states that all salts, isomers, and salts of isomers of these substances are also schedule I controlled substances. In non-technical terms, an isomer of a substance is a different compound, but a compound which has the same number and kind of atoms. The terms "optical isomer" and "geometric isomer" are specific scientific terms and it is easy to determine whether one substance is an optical or geometric isomer of another. The term "positional isomer," however, is subject to scientific interpretation. The addition of a definition for the term "positional isomer" will assist legitimate research[ers] and industry in determining the control status of materials that are "positional isomers" of schedule I hallucinogens. While the DEA will remain the authority for ultimately determining the control status of a given material, providing a specific definition for "positional isomer" will ensure consistent criteria are utilized in making these determinations. This rule does not change existing laws, regulations, policies, processes, and procedures regarding the determination of control status for schedule I hallucinogenic substances. This rule merely makes available to the public the longstanding definition of "positional isomer" which DEA has used when making these scheduling determinations. This rule is relevant only to specialized forensic or research chemists. Most of these individuals are existing DEA registrants who are authorized by the DEA to handle schedule I hallucinogenic substances.     

An Update on the New Federal Expert Discovery Rule: The Expert's Perspective

In December 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (FRCP 26) was amended to protect certain communications between a litigating counsel and its experts from discovery. The rule protects communications and draft expert reports and lays out new disclosure requirements for the so-called “treating physician” expert. Attorneys and experts who first read the rule commonly agreed that the rule would make expert discovery more streamlined and cost-effective while preserving an opposing party's right to obtain facts and data that were considered by the expert in formulating its opinion. However, many commentators on the amended FRCP 26 warned practitioners not to fully embrace the literal meaning of the rule until it was field tested by litigating attorneys and the courts had the opportunity to interpret a number of loosely defined terms during the course of resolving federal discovery disputes. Now, almost a year after the rule's first official publication, several courts have interpreted the key terms that appear in the rule and have expressed their interpretations in written opinions. The judicial holdings of these cases cover different aspects of the rule, and it is still too early to determine how the majority of federal courts will ultimately interpret it. However, a review of current case law indicates that the courts have, thus far, taken a practical and literal view of the amended rule and have not expanded or limited its scope beyond what was generally believed to be the intent of the rule. As a result, practitioners are still hopeful that the rule will make working with an expert more efficient and less cumbersome, to the benefit of experts, attorneys, and ultimately their clients.     

WTO体制内国内法的可诉性问题

在一般国际法理论与实践中,国内法本身可以单独构成国际争端解决程序的诉因。WTO体制内国内法可诉的法律依据是GATT1994第23条、DSU第3.8条以及《WTO协定》第16.4条。在WTO争端解决实践中,专家组和上诉机构的裁决呈现出一个重要的趋势:在美国“301条款”案前,遵循GATT1947时期专家组所确立的“裁量性立法与强制性立法之区分”的习惯性做法;在美国“301条款”案后,不再严格遵循这一习惯性做法。WTO体制内国内法之可诉性问题目前尚没有一个统一、明确的答案。     

调控政策、承诺可置信性与信赖利益保护——动态不一致性理论下的宏观调控法治建构进路

随着国家发改委关于制定宏观调控基本法之立法动议的提出,宏观调控的“规则之治”再度引起法学界的关注。然而,对于调控措施在时间序列上的一致性,即调控承诺的可置信性之法理考察仍暂付阙如。依循动态不一致性理论,有必要围绕信息费用约束下的归责原则、责任构造以及立基于知识分工的实施机制确立信赖利益保护,以之作为在调控主体与受体间重新分配违背调控承诺所致损失的分割器,为稳定调控受体预期、提高调控绩效奠定制度基础。     

电商领域知识产权“通知—删除”规则的困境与出路

《电子商务法》“通知—删除”规则呈现出滥用和错误通知概率高,损失风险大,实质作用可能得不到发挥等问题,源于其对电商知识产权侵权治理效果的积极追求,以及因此形成的对传统“通知—删除”思路的改动式借鉴——允许在认为侵权情况下发出通知但不提供恢复选择,结果是这一“通知—删除”规则不具备诉前禁令的条件却具有类似的效果。现有完善思路意图让这套规则更接近真正意义的诉前禁令,却因忽视了两者的本质区别而难有成效。电子商务治理应该注重发挥利用平台的管控力,基于此形成的平台自治能够通过平台的实质性介入引导纠纷解决和提高处理效率,从而控制滥用、降低风险,缓解规则存在的弊端。实现平台自治一方面需要在不违背法律价值和不降低法律要求的前提下通过“约定—同意”的方式探索自治空间;另一方面需要在规范层面赋予平台一定的自治权限,让平台有权根据实际情况在收到反通知后确定采取必要措施的期限。     

On the Superiority of Corrective Taxes to Quantity Regulation

The traditional view of economists has been that correctivetaxes are superior to direct regulation of harmful externalitieswhen the state's information about control costs is incomplete.In recent years, however, many economists seem to have adopteda different view—that either corrective taxes or quantityregulation could be superior to the other. We emphasize thatone argument for this newer view, identified with Weitzman (1974),holds only if the state is constrained to use a fixed tax rate(a linear tax schedule) even when harm is nonlinear. But if—asseems more plausible—the state can impose a nonlineartax equal to the schedule of harm or can adjust the tax rateupon learning that it diverges from marginal harm, then correctivetaxes are superior to quantity regulation. Another argumentfavoring quantity regulation is that it gains appeal when thestate is uncertain about the harm caused by an externality.In this case, however, a corrective tax schedule (equal to theexpected harm schedule) is superior to quantity regulation.