Automatism: comparison of common law and civil law approaches--a search for the optimal

This article reviews common and civil law approaches to automatism with discussion of legal definitions and the conditions in which automatism occurs. The common law approach to sane (exogenous) and insane (endogenous) automatism is examined. Despite a change in the law, which obviates mandatory incarceration for all persons found not guilty on the basis of insane automatism, the stigma of insanity remains. A number of Continental jurisdictions, though, have adopted an approach divorced from judgmental labels, whereby acts, which result from automatism, are classified under the rubric of unconsciousness. The article draws upon this approach, analyses alternatives to insane automatism and proposes instead an analysis by reference to "cognitive dysfunction", thereby removing all reference to the concept of insanity.     

Comparing civil law and common law systems for mergers and acquisitions An economic analysis

＂From the economic point of view, common law is more efficient than civil law.＂ Is this recent statement published in an economic report valid for mergers and acquisitions （M＆A）？ The main objective of this paper is to compare the legal performance of M＆A in France and in the United States. The purpose is to quantify the impact of both legal systems on the long-term performance of M＆A transactions. To carry out this research, a specific methodology was developed and the results of which are evaluated. Two legal structures for M＆A transactions were retained： the purchase of shares （share deal）, and the purchase of assets （asset deal）. Each of these acquisition structures was then subdivided into eleven steps composing the process, for example from preliminary information, letter of intent, due diligence, stock or asset purchase agreement, closing, to litigation with formal summons. Performance was then measured by taking into account time, cost, and satisfaction factors. The time factor was broken down into person-days and the number of days, weeks, or months required to complete each step. French and U.S. respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire with reference to a specific acquisition project. A typical question was for instance： What is your estimate of working days to complete this step （person-days）？ Radar charts were used to compare the mean of each performance factor. In order to check for correlations among the performance factors, an inter-factors analysis （regression） was carried out. The research findings are presented in this paper. Results show that a share deal in France is generally cheaper and participants indicate a significantly greater amount of satisfaction than in the U.S. However, for the time factor, the results vary. The conclusion is that the application of the civil code rather than common law does not reveal substantial differences as far as M＆A transactions are concerned. One reason is that in both France and the U.S. these transactions are carried out following standard procedures in compliance with common contractual practices.     

Applying antitrust law to nonprofit healthcare entities: arguments for a greater attention to detail

This Article begins with an antitrust primer, then analyzes the appropriate application of antitrust principles to nonprofit healthcare providers. In light of the inherent charitable character of nonprofit healthcare providers, the author contends that the government and the courts should accord some deference to nonprofit hospitals when they are seeking approval of mergers. To date, this has not generally been the case, although a few recent court decisions have rested their approval of mergers, in part, upon the nonprofit character of the merging entities. The author, in particular, believes the paradigmatic local nonprofit hospital with a community board is less likely than a for-profit hospital to abuse any market power that it may obtain through a merger; consequently, any such merger should not be analyzed solely under the traditional presumptions of antitrust jurisprudence. Rather, the premerger analysis should involve meaningful consideration of the hospital's charitable character.     

Uneasy detente: strengthening the market's adaptation of the GNU General Public License in common law jurisdictions

Legal context: The phenomenon of open-source software, and especially the exponentialgrowth of its most successful project, Linux, has spawned oneof the most hotly debated topics in technical and legal Communities.The Communities attempt to balance the limitation of softwarelicences in contract and copyright law with the goals of open-sourcesoftware. Key points: This article evaluates common law approaches to software licencesand examines the applicability of international sales of goodstreaties. The American adaptation of copyright law to computersoftware provides a foundation for analysing decisions in theUK and other Commonwealth countries. It describes the Linuxcommunity's adaptation of open-source development models toaccommodate the realities of copyright law while encouragingparticipation from commercial vendors and their considerableresources. Practical significance: Courts and market inertia will force both the open-source andclosed-source models to co-exist. Legal practitioners worldwidehave the opportunity to help the software Community embraceboth open-source and closed-source developers by explainingthe utility of this adaptation in both legal and technical arenas.     

Code or court: the financial-political aspect of correlation between common and civil law

This paper analyses the ‘law and finance theory’ and other papers which are based on it and finds that the theory has more in common with a political order than independent scientific research. This paper argues that, as our world becomes more and more globalized, common law countries in general, and case law in particular, have a little advantage when it concerns financial and business relationships. Consequently, such differences as legal origins can become a huge rift for global unity. It concludes that, in agreement with many philosophers, the best way is a ‘middle way’. It recommends the construction a new system of law, which combines the best aspects of the common and civil law families.     

Hungary: unjustified discrimination confirms need for greater awareness

When young G's parents learned that their son had passed his entrance exam for the technical school he wanted to go to, they asked to see the principal. No law or regulation obliged them to do so, but they preferred to inform the institution that their son was seropositive. Their choice was based on their desire to avoid any future speculation, and they also considered it preferable to let those who would be in daily charge of their son know about his condition. Unfortunately, the principal reacted by denying their son admission to the school.     

A secret paradox of the common law

This essay recounts a fascinating if complicated piece of Anglo-American debate. My aim is to reach a conclusion about the importance of the notion of changing one's normative position as part of the act of “giving sufficient consideration” for a legal contract. In several journals and textbooks between 1894 and 1918 the major contract scholars of the time, e.g., Langdell, Anson, Pollock, Williston, Ames, and Corbin, discussed a special example which was thought to reveal a paradox in the common law of consideration. The problem had shown itself in the textbooks of Pollock in England and Langdell in the United States. The example is of two contracts made by three persons in which one contract with the third party repeats the content of an existing contract with the second party. It would appear that the party at the pivot experiences no new detriment in merely performing, or promising to perform, his pre-existing duty. If so, such oblique contracts with third parties must fail for want of consideration extended from the first party. About this difficulty the experts were anything but agreed. The cases were not consistent. At the root of this uncertainty is an ambivalence about the concept of consideration itself. Should it be conceived in terms of normative relations and changes of moral position or should it be conceived in valuative terms, as harms and benefits? The differences of opinion about the legal validity of oblique contracts is explained by this ambiguity, one which the common lawyer has not yet resolved.     

论以民法补充海商法的单位

一直以来,“以民法补充海商法”的原则成为国内学者和实务界解决海商法与民法之间的法律冲突、补充《中华人民共和国海商法》立法漏洞的惯用思维;然而,这一原则的模糊性导致对以民法补充海商法的单位是事项还是要素产生争议。从《中华人民共和国立法法》与《中华人民共和国海商法》具体条文出发,通过法律解释得出民法补充海商法的单位是事项而非要素的初步结论;进而结合海商法的外来性和海上责任的独立性进行理论分析,对以上初步结论进行进一步印证;在此基础上提出对海商法研究与《中华人民共和国海商法》修改的建议。     

中国古代民法与现代民法若干问题比较研究——以物权法为中心

本文以物权法为中心,从古代民法的有无、物权客体的分类、永佃权以及遗失物制度几个方面与现代民法进行了比较研究。得出了中国古代不仅存在民法而且内容非常丰富,对之进行研究将对我国现今民事立法大有裨益的结论。     

论海商法之于民法的独立性

海商法被认为是民法的特别法是长期以来法学界认识上的重大误区。海商法有不同于民法的独立的历史渊源和发展轨迹,而且海商法与民法从法律属性、表现形式、立法体系、规范内容以及纠纷解决机制方面都迥然相异。这一认识上的错误也导致诸多危害后果:民法的伦理性抑制海商法的效益性;民法的地域性消解海商法的统一性;民法的私法性限缩了海商法的适用范围。     

Judicial precedents in civil law systems: A dynamic analysis

This paper uses a simple dynamic model to describe the evolution of judicial decision making in civil law systems. Unlike the common law systems, civil law jurisdictions do not adopt a stare decisis principle in adjudication. In deciding any given legal issue, precedents serve a persuasive role. Civil law courts are expected to take past decisions into account when there is a sufficient level of consistency in case law. Generally speaking, when uniform case law develops, courts treat precedents as a source of “soft” law, taking them into account when reaching a decision. The higher the level of uniformity in past precedents, the greater the persuasive force of case law. Although civil law jurisdictions do not allow dissenting judges to attach a dissent to a majority opinion, cases that do not conform to the dominant trend serve as a signal of dissent among the judiciary. These cases influence future decisions in varying ways in different legal traditions. Judges may also be influenced by recent jurisprudential trends and fads in case law. The evolution of case law under these doctrines of precedents is modeled, considering the possibility for consolidation or corrosion of legal remedies and the permanence of unsettled case law.     

Substantive rules of argumentation for value judgment in civil law: In the context of academic practice of civil law in China

Value judgment is at the core of civil law. This paper explores how scholars of civil law reach mutual understanding and consensus on specific value judgment by rational discussion in the context of multiple value orientation. Based on a brief evaluation of the theory of legal argument and with the basic value consensus of Chinese civil law scholars as the premise, this paper proposes two substantive rules of argumentation for scholars of civil law to discuss value judgment: First, a strong of equal treatment should be carried out in the absence of sufficient and justified reasons or otherwise; Second, the freedom of civil subject should not be restrained in the absence of sufficient and justified reasons or otherwise. To reach mutual understanding, and on the basis of that to reach new consensus on specific value judgment further, scholars of civil law should base their discussions on substantive rules of argumentation for value judgment, follow rules and forms of argumentation as procedural techniques, and apply proper methods of argumentation. This paper also explores the application of substantive rules of argumentation on two specific value judgment issues of civil law scholars.     

论民法的基本原理

我国即将制定民法典,在制定民法典时,应坚持什么样的立法指导思想?即以什么作为民法学体系 所体现的精神?这就要研究什么是民法的基本原理。关于这一点,学术界研究甚少,往往更多的关注具体的民法规范。笔者在此想谈一下自己对“民法的基本原理”这一宏观问题的认识。通过对民法的性质、总则及具体民事制度的分析,说明“意思自治”成为民法基本原理的必然。     

提高公务员依法行政能力刍议

提高依法行政能力是公务员队伍建设的重要课题,直接关系到整个国家依法治国能否有效进行。目前公务员依法行政能力与形势的要求相比,还存在着一定的差距,这在相当程度上影响着我国依法行政水平的提高。为了实现法治政府建设的目标,必须通过加强对公务员的培训,建立和完善对公务员评价考核制度,实行行政执法责任制,使公务员真正树立行政法治观念,不断提高依法行政能力。     

论民商法价值取向的异同及其对我国民商立法的影响

民法和商法作为调整市场经济关系的重要法律制度,既有密切联系又有一定区别。其区分依据除了要考虑法律的调整对象之外,立法价值取向的差异也是一个非常重要的因素。民法的最高价值取向是公平,立法上采取的是公平优先原则;而商法的最高价值取向则是效益,立法上采取的是效益优先原则。正确认识民法和商法在价值取向上的不同,无论对于理论研究还是司法实践都具有非常重要的意义。