论英美法中医务人员行为的注意义务

过失是构成侵权行为的一个重要条件,在英美法中,判断过失有无的标准就是注意义务.本文在概括介绍注意义务的前提下,着重介绍了英美法中行医人对其病人应承担的注意义务标准,以期对我国医疗事故案件处理有所借鉴.     

论英美法中医务人员行为的注意义务

过失是构成侵权行为的一个重要条件 ,在英美法中 ,判断过失有无的标准就是注意义务。本文在概括介绍注意义务的前提下 ,着重介绍了英美法中行医人对其病人应承担的注意义务标准 ,以期对我国医疗事故案件处理有所借鉴。     

An analysis of juvenile law in Taiwan and some comparisons with the U.S.

Juveniles have been treated differently from adults in legal matters throughout Chinese history. However, a special comprehensive juvenile law was not published until 1962. The law deals with juvenile delinquents and potential delinquents, ages 12–18. Juveniles involved in espionage against the government are not protected by juvenile law. Juveniles in general have less due process protection compared to their counterparts in the U.S. However, this is compensated by the better trained judges in Taiwan. Cultural differences also resulted in Taiwan putting more emphasis on the family responsibility for the care and Supervision of juveniles.     

英国法中司法认定作为证据的可采性分析-兼与美国证据法作比较

司法认定所依据的事实在随后发生的诉讼中有时会成为案件的争点问题,而将司法认定作为证据来证明争议的事实是否具有可采性是一个复杂的问题：要对这一问题作出规定,不仅需要考虑不同类型诉讼的审判方式、证明标准,还要考虑公正、程序滥用等公共政策。英国普通法实践最先通过Hollington案在这一问题上表明了立场,然而随着质疑的产生以及英国法对公正性日益重视,法律改革委员会和刑事法律修订委员会渐渐抛弃了普通法所确立的Hollington规则,对包括先前定罪在内的司法认定作为证明其所依据的事实之证据是否可采作出了具体细致的规定。在同为英美法系的美国,因普通法实践及政策考量等方面的差异,在这一问题上,《美国联邦证据规则》的规定与英国证据法有所不同。     

The Keys to Legislative Success in the U.S. House of Representatives

Our research addresses how individual member behavior and institutional variables affect legislative success in the U.S. House of Representatives. Using new measures of activity from the 103d Congress (1993–94), a count dependent variable, and negative binomial regression, our analysis assesses member effectiveness. We find that a member's activity level encourages legislative success, but gains are limited when members speak or sponsor too frequently. Our results provide a clearer picture of the role of legislative context and the relevance of institutions in determining a member's legislative successes and failures.     

海上保险的告知义务：经济学的思考

探讨海上保险告知义务的经济学基础,分析现行告知义务规范存在的问题,并尝试运用法经济学重塑合理的告知义务法律规则.     

Legislative duty and the independence of law

This essay considers the nature of duties incumbent on legislators in virtue of the office itself. I argue that there is no duty for a legislator to enact a criminal law based on morality; there is no duty to incorporate substantive moral conditions into the criminal law; and there is therefore no duty derivable from the nature of the legislative office itself to make conditions of culpability depend on those of moral responsibility. Finally, I argue that the relation between morality and the criminal law is therefore much less direct than assumed in most theories of the criminal law.     

美国反避税立法之CFC规则研究

随着经济全球化的深入发展,跨国纳税人的避税行为日益频繁,反避税立法成为国际税法和国内税法的共同任务。美国是世界上最早进行反避税立法的国家,其中,其受控外国公司立法,是世界上第一个CFC规则,已经成为其他国家相关立法的模板。由于越来越多的跨国纳税人利用递延纳税进行避税,CFC规则价值凸显,其在美国反避税法律体系中的地位也日趋重要,具体规则也日趋严厉。尽管美国CFC规则也面临一定的冲突和挑战,其反避税价值仍然值得我们深入研究。近年来我国也面临严峻的反避税任务,对美国反避税相关立法进行研究,对中国具有直接的现实意义。     

U.S. CLS

This essay offers a brief account of the rise of cls thought in the United States and of its development within a largely hostile legal academy. As the essay suggests, cls thought has been variously deformed, arrested, normalized, and diffused – leaving the contemporary American legal academy in a state of suspended animation. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

美国消费者的“疯狂”维权之诉

每年3月15日的消费者保护日,似乎始终是个不痛不痒的日子。而在美国,亦有着类似的保护消费者的纪念日。与官方色彩浓厚的"3·15"相比,这个史特拉奖(Stella Awards)年度纪念日似乎显得有些疯狂荒诞。然而其背后蕴藏着的消费者保护法理,亦值得人们深思。     

美国专利权利要求解释的简介

<最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释>,经最高人民法院审判委员会第1480次会议通过,于2009年12月28日发布,自2010年1月1日起施行,涉及专利权保护范围的确定问题.在专利侵权诉讼中,美国法院通常举行审前听证(马克曼听证会),以确定专利权利要求的保护范围.法官对权利要求范围的认定会预示专利侵权案件的结果,促使双方当事人尽快和解,从而加快专利侵权诉讼.介绍美国专利权利要求的概要,对我国的专利诉讼实践有着参考价值.     

The Calculus of Cosponsorship in the U.S. Senate

We investigated why a legislator would be willing to vote “yea” on final passage of a bill but would choose not to cosponsor that bill. We tested a series of hypotheses regarding the cosponsorship decisions of individual senators, using a dataset that includes every major initiative that was introduced and received a floor vote in the Senate between 1975 and 2000. We found that senators are more likely to cosponsor bills when their preferences diverge from the Senate median but are closer to those of the bill's sponsor. Also, senators are more likely to cosponsor bills when they sponsor a higher number of bills overall, when they become more connected with colleagues, and when their constituents increase demand for legislation within particular policy areas. Senators are less likely to cosponsor bills if they received a higher percentage of the general election vote in their most recent election.