论我国未成年人监护人责任制度的完善——兼议侵权责任法的立法选择

未成年人监护人责任是民事侵权责任领域非常重要的一部分,我国《民法通则》第133条对其进行了规定,但该规定存在诸多问题。有必要就我国现行监护人责任制度进行检讨,以完善我国相关立法。检讨的重点为未成年人侵权责任能力、未成年人监护人责任的构成要件以及责任形态等方面。通过对现行立法的检讨、学者建议稿的评析、域外相关法律制度的借鉴,试图对将来侵权责任法的相关立法进行一定的构想。     

我国《公司法》修订中商事连带责任的重构——基于“连带”的历史发展脉络

我国《公司法》存在用连带责任替代连带之债、连带责任与无限责任、补充责任混同使用的现象,给理论与司法实践造成困扰。究其原因是对商事连带责任与民事连带责任的关系界定不清,对公司法中的商事连带责任制度缺乏体系化思考与精细化设计。连带之债起源于罗马法的整体之债,形成于中世纪注释法学的理论抽象,发展于近现代民法。近现代商法将法定原因连带责任引入商事规范,构建了商事连带责任制度。商事连带责任与民法连带之债共同具有给付与清偿的整体性特征,但商事连带责任也具有自身的商事特性。由于商事信义义务的道德标准高于民事诚信义务,商事法定连带责任相对于民事连带责任的适用范围更为广泛。基于商事领域的公司股东有限责任制度,商事连带责任可为有限连带也可为无限连带。我国《公司法》未来的修订应在我国《民法典》连带之债规定的基础上对商事连带责任进行体系化贯通,谨慎设定法定连带责任,厘清连带责任与无限责任的关系,对有限连带责任与无限连带责任、连带清偿责任与补充清偿责任进行细化区分。     

医疗机构在医药产品侵权中的责任研究——以中外对比研究为重点

由于医药产品在医疗活动得到了广泛应用,医药产品侵权问题也成为一个热点问题。世界各国对医疗机构在有缺陷的医药产品侵权中是否承担责任以及如何承担责任主要有两种做法：一是,医疗机构作为医疗服务的提供者不承担产品责任,而由产品的生产者和销售者按照严格责任原则承担产品责任。这一做法以英国和美国为代表。二是,医疗机构通过提供医药产品获得经济,其行为性质与销售无异,因而与产品的生产者、销售者按照严格责任原则承担连带责任。这一种做法以欧盟为代表。笔者认为,我国《侵权责任法》采第二种做法。本文采用共同侵权的连带责任原理对《侵权责任法》的相关规定进行分析。连带责任产生外部法律效果和内部法律效果。就外部法律效果而言,对医疗机构和生产者同时适用产品责任的严格责任原则,患者既可以向生产者请求赔偿,也可向医疗机构请求赔偿。就内部法律效果而言,对医疗机构和生产者分别适用过错原则和产品责任的严格责任原则,即医疗机构在经患者请求赔偿其损害后,如果对医药产品的缺陷没有过错,可以向生产者追偿。我国《侵权责任法》的规定在倾斜保护患者利益的同时,有可能产生负面影响。医疗机构应当积极应对。     

跨国公司人权责任的规制及其反思

在追究跨国公司的国际人权责任方面，目前主要有三种规制方式：国家对跨国公司的管制；来自非政府组织和其他国际组织的监督以及跨国公司的自律。但这些途径尚不足以成为跨国公司承担人权责任的有效保障．因而必须采取措施强化跨国公司国际人权责任的规制。     

医疗责任保险的思考

大力发展医疗责任保险,对医疗执业过失给患者造成的损害进行充分赔偿,在保障患者和医疗机构及其医务人员的合法权益,优化医疗环境和医疗公共秩序方面有重要的促进作用。由于我国医院主体是公立医院,侵权法人身损害赔偿相对于综合医院尚未到重大程度,并且综合性医院每年发生的医疗过失案件基本确定,选择满足面临危险的医院财务安全需要的医疗责任保险模式,如医疗责任保险信托等,才能促进医疗责任保险的发展。实践表明,商业性医疗责任保险不宜成为我国医疗责任保险的主体。建立独立的医疗过失纠纷调解鉴定机构,才能保证医疗责任保险顺利开展。     

Rethinking governmental licensing of higher education institutions

In many countries around the world, governmental authorities control the market entry of new providers of higher educational services. By means of ex-ante licensing in the higher education sector, government ensures that students are only confronted with academic programs and institutions that at least meet certain minimum quality standards. This quality-assuring intervention by government may be taken for granted. From an economic viewpoint, however, it seems worthwhile to scrutinize the regulatory status quo. In order to rethink existing licensing arrangements’ raison d’être, the present paper addresses the question whether governmental market entry control in the higher education industry is necessary at all.

论行政法上的连带责任

《最高人民法院关于审理行政许可案件若干问题的规定》第13条在行政法上确立了一个新的连带责任类型,即行政主体和私人共同承担连带责任。行政法上的连带责任应从行政主体之间的连带责任拓宽到行政相对人之间的连带责任以及行政民事连带责任,应从行政许可与行政赔偿领域拓宽到行政处罚等其它领域。行政法上连带责任的实现有赖于建立或重构行政诉讼和行政赔偿诉讼第三人制度,建立行政案件与民事案件的合并审理机制。行政主体在承担责任后要向作为连带责任人的第三人追偿,则有赖于建立"官告民"的行政诉讼机制,否则只能通过民事诉讼机制去追偿。     

行政执法案卷评查制度研究

行政执法案卷评查,是我国推行依法行政中需要解决的重要问题。从各地方的实践来看,行政执法案卷评查制度虽然已经取得了巨大进展,但还存在许多问题,我们应该认识到行政执法案卷评查制度的重要性,进一步完善、健全该制度。     

The development of care technology under liability law

It is well known that strict liability and negligence induce pareto optimal care in a most restrictive model of unilateral accidents. The paper at hand extends this traditional theorem from its static context to an intertemporal setting where tort law induces progress in care technology. This model provides a methodological framework for a general analysis of the dynamic incentives generated by alternative liability rules. One of the many possible extensions of the basic model is to allow for incomplete information. Particularly, we drop the assumption that the authority setting the due care standard under negligence is able to assess technical progress ex ante. It is shown that the dynamic incentives of the negligence rule are distorted compared to strict liability in this modified framework.     

论个人信息保护的行政规制路径

个人信息保护存在私法诉讼与行政规制两种主要路径,私法诉讼多以侵权之诉的形式展开。由于个人信息处理者与信息主体的地位失衡,信息主体举证困难,维权难度高;由于损害难以界定,诉讼存在成本与收益不均衡的激励困境;同时,个别性的诉讼也难以有效回应系统性的社会风险。行政规制路径以基本权利的国家保护义务作为法权基础,在专业性、信息充分程度、治理效率等方面具有比较优势。个人信息保护立法应当更妥善地处理两种路径的协调。未来个人信息保护的行政规制路径需要进一步明确规制体制,充分运用行政处罚、自我规制、内部管理型规制、第三方规制等多元化的规制机制。     

Proving liability for highly and fully automated vehicle accidents in Australia

This article considers how liability questions will be resolved under current Australian laws for automated vehicle (‘AV’) accidents. In terms of the parties that are likely to be held responsible, I argue that whether the human driver remains liable depends on the degree to which the relevant AV is automated, and the degree of control the human driver had over the events leading up to the particular accident. Assuming therefore that human drivers would not be held liable for the majority of highly and fully automated vehicle accidents, plaintiffs will have to establish liability on part of those who manufacture, maintain or contribute to the operation of AVs, under the claims available in Australia's product liability regime.This article then turns to the problems of proof that plaintiffs are likely to face in establishing AV manufacturer liability in negligence, or in a defective goods claim under Part 3–5 of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’). Firstly, it may be difficult to determine the cause of the AV accident, due to the technical complexity of AVs and due to ongoing concerns as to the explainability of AI-decision making. Secondly, plaintiffs may struggle to prove fault in a negligence claim, or that the vehicle was defective for the purposes of Part 3–5 of the ACL. Essentially, under both actions, manufacturers will be held to a duty to undertake reasonable testing of their AVs. Given that it is currently impracticable to completely test for, and eliminate all AV errors, and due to the broader social utility the technology is likely to offer, plaintiffs may face evidentiary challenges in proving that the manufacturer's testing was unreasonable.     

Liability and food safety provision: Empirical evidence from the US

Recent environmental and food safety incidents are bringing attention to regulatory regimes and their effects on care provision. This article investigates the effects of the application of liability regimes with punitive damages in the reduction of food contamination episodes in the United States from 1990 to 2000. The main result is that the application of strict liability laws allowing claims of punitive damages decreases in a statistically significant way the number of food safety incidents. Statistical results show that states allowing claims of punitive damages are between 15% and 30% less likely to suffer food safety incidents.     

Carbon dioxide capture and storage—liability for non-permanence under the UNFCCC

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has recently been gaining more and more attention as a climate change mitigation option. However, as CO₂ may re-enter the atmosphere after injection into geological reservoirs, the question of long-term liability has to be considered if an environmentally sound policy is desired. Apart from this aspect, additional complexities arise from the fact that CO₂ capture and storage can be carried out in two different countries. A classification of CCS cross-border activities shows that not all cases with non-Annex I participation fall under the Clean Development Mechanism. This classification is based on the assumption that according to Article 1.8 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, CCS would be considered an emission reduction at the source. Furthermore, we elaborate on the problem that seepage of CO₂ from reservoirs located in non-Annex I countries—under current rules—would not be subtracted from the emission budget of any country. We discuss options for creating liability in these cases.     

人工智能的可解释性与AI的法律责任问题研究

人工智能(AI)作为类人类智能,无论我们是否赋予其主体资格,在解决其法律责任问题时,都必须对其行为进行解释,为此,探讨人工智能的法律责任问题,应该基于人工智能行为的可解释性的全新路径来推进,而不是纠缠于当下学界关于人工智能主体地位与法律责任的各种主体论与责任理论。人工智能的可解释性,亦即解释人工智能如何在大数据的基础上进行算法决策。然而,在AI领域,虽然以深度学习为代表的人工智能技术已取得了令人瞩目的成就,但如何确保以非技术性的方式向最终用户和其他利益相关方解释算法决策以及任何驱动这些决策的数据,仍是一个无法得到解决的难题,人工智能黑箱释明难题决定了人工智能行为的不可解释性。法律责任的本质是答责,不具有可解释性的人工智能不能自我答责,因此其无法承担法律责任;法律责任的目的是预防,不具有可解释性的人工智能无法实现法律责任的预防目的。人工智能法学研究的下一个前沿问题,是人工智能的可解释性问题。     

关于深化行政执法体制改革的几点思考

行政执法体制改革,是目前我国推行行政改革和依法行政中需要解决的主要问题。深化行政执法体制改革,需要认真总结经验,把握两个关系;同时进一步加强理论研究,强化理论对实践的指导。另外,美国地方政府的一些做法和经验值得我们学习。     

论赠与人的责任

赠与合同是现实生活中常见的合同之一,《合同法》设专章进行了规定,但对赠与人的责任规定得较为简单和概括。赠与人的责任可归纳为瑕疵责任（包括故意不告知受赠人瑕疵、保证无瑕疵、附义务的赠与）、缔约责任（包括无故撤销赠与及恶意磋商等）和违约责任等三种,其承担责任的条件、责任方式、赔偿范围等各不相同。     

After Waterhouse: vicarious liability and the tort of institutional abuse

As evidence of the extent of the abuse of children in residential care increases, our understanding of this terrible wrong has altered. These assaults are an institutional syndrome, at the same time that they are individual crimes; certain systems of institutional care are conducive to/foster abuse behaviour (acting as 'crucibles' rather than 'honeypots'for rogue paedophiles). A theory of vicarious (institutional) liability is appropriate if we understand a syndrome of institutional abuse in this way, as involving institutional responsibility in addition to individual fault. The recent decision of the Canadian Supreme Court in Bazley v Curry found a children's home vicariously liable for sexual assaults of an employee on the basis of responsibility through the creation of risk, an analysis of and apportionment of liability which is appropriate to the special syndrome of institutional abuse, while encouraging deterrence and providing fair and practical compensation to victims. This analysis/liability is supported by an economic analysis of institutional child abuse and decision making in child protection.     

The strategic value of new university technology and its impact on exclusivity of licensing transactions: An empirical study

Commercialization of new university technology within the new product development process is an important tool by which established firms can expand their innovative capabilities. The strategic importance of the university technology to the firm, however, can vary considerably. An exclusivity agreement is a useful tool to protect the firm’s investment and help ensure that value is appropriated through the commercialization process. An empirical study of 66 technology transfer projects in the information and communications technology industry reveals that licensing transactions are usually secured by some form of exclusivity agreements when the product innovation enabled by the new university technology is new-to-the-firm or new-to-the-market and the firm’s perception of the strategic value of the new technologies is high.      

Reimbursement schemes for hospitals, malpractice liability, and intrinsic motivation

We develop a simple multi-task principal-agent model to analyze the interplay between optimal reimbursement schemes for hospitals and liability rules (basic model). We then extend our model and assume that the hospital is intrinsically motivated to exert positive effort for quality and cost reduction. This effort, however, is biased towards quality. Moreover, the intrinsic motivation may be crowded out by monetary incentives. In such a setting, we find that a pure prospective payment system (PPS) that has become widespread in recent years can only be optimal in the unlikely case where malpractice liability holds hospitals fully responsible for expected harm. For other cases, we confirm the prejudice that PPS may lead to inefficiently low quality. Then, the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) system is superior if the intrinsic motivation is high and relatively little biased towards quality, whereas mixed systems should be chosen otherwise. Our model sheds light on why countries like the USA with a tough liability system haven been less reluctant to switch from FFS to PPS than Germany, for instance.     

海事赔偿责任限制与连带赔偿责任的同时适用

海事赔偿责任限制与连带赔偿责任是立法宗旨根本对立的两项法律制度,由于《中华人民共和国海商法》没有明确何者优先适用,当两项制度同时适用于一个案件时,便会产生互相否定和互相排斥现象,给审判和执行工作带来困惑。在协调两者同时适用冲突、平衡双方当事人利益的前提下,提出两项制度同时适用的方法规则。