公司决议瑕疵立法的范式转换与体系重构

现行法套用民事法律行为范式,以瑕疵决议一律自始无效确保原告救济,以信赖保护维护公司安定,最终却导致原告救济与公司安定及效率的割裂与冲突。这一冲突的根源在于,以瑕疵决议一律自始无效所提供的原告救济本身缺乏正当性、针对性和可行性。应当按比例原则的要求,以瑕疵严重程度区分安排法律后果,从瑕疵决议效力这一源头上重建组织法范式下原告个体与公司整体利益的平衡。仅在瑕疵特别严重时,才应自始否定决议效力,从而禁止其实施或在实施后恢复原状,否则只应适用决议面向将来无效、损害赔偿等柔性法律后果,公司由此可在更大范围内获得决议实施效率及安定。以此为基础,应取消现行“三分法”的诉讼类型划分,而代之以统一的决议瑕疵诉讼及诉讼期限。公司变更决议仅在排除特别严重瑕疵后方可实施并获得存续效力。     

环境侵权救济之民事诉讼原告资格探究

环境侵权结果须借助自然环境这一中间介质方能发生,而环境的公共性、使用的非排他性等特征决定了受损权利具有公益与私益的双重特征,这也使得提起民事诉讼救济的原告主体有私益性原告与公益性原告的区分,其诉讼请求、诉讼标的、诉讼事由、诉讼利益归属等各有不同,而上述两类原告所提之诉同属民事救济的两种渠道、两个诉讼,可以合并或单独审理。     

LAW SCHOOLS AND FAMILY COURT REFORM

Family courts are underfunded and overwhelmed, and the quality of representation provided by counsel in family court cases is problematic. This article discusses what role law schools can play in promoting family court reform. It argues that law school involvement in family court is consistent with the law school's core missions of education, research, and public service. The article illustrates how law schools can be involved in family court reform by discussing interdisciplinary projects of the Center for Children, Families and the Law of Hofstra University and North Shore–Long Island Jewish Health Systems. Finally, the article identifies some lessons to be learned if law schools want to be involved in family court reform.     

英国法上作为抗辩事由之原告违法的限制论

如何对作为侵权责任抗辩事由的原告违法进行限制始终是普通法上的一个重要问题。为此,英国司法上出现了违法类型论、依赖原则论、关联论、立法目的论、公共良心测试论等诸多认识。2009年英国法律改革委员会提出应当将侵权法上的原告违法抗辩问题的改革任务继续留给法院,但此后的法院判决却动摇了对司法的信心,学说认为仍然需要立法的指引。对作为抗辩事由的原告违法进行限制问题的实质是公共利益与私人利益之间的平衡,因此,应当从原被告之间的关系以及原告的违法行为与公共利益之间的关系两个维度进行考量。侵权法上的原告违法之抗辩与违法行为(合同)的效力、不法原因给付的返还等问题之间具有实质相似性,应予一体把握。     

环境公益诉讼原告资格分析

环境公益诉讼制度是实现对自然权利维护的有效途径。实现对自然权利的司法救济,其关键之处就在于原告起诉资格的适当放宽,允许公众为了自然的权利而向法院提起诉讼。鉴于我国环境诉讼中原告资格的立法现状,我国环境诉讼中对原告资格立法应进一步完善。     

民事权益受损者行政诉讼原告资格考辨

民事权益受损者本应通过民事诉讼获得救济,一旦其请求行政机关介入查处违法行为或解决民事纠纷时往往会引发行政诉讼原告资格问题.本文采实质诉权说认为,民事权益受损者起诉权的认定应以公法请求权为基础,故需以保护规范理论为工具探寻公法规范中是否包含保护私人利益的指向,而非简单以侵权行为影响论或行政行为影响论判断受害者的行政诉讼原...     

环境管理机关公益诉讼原告资格理论与实践之辨

环境公益诉讼是保护环境的利器,它对于改善环境起到的积极作用是毋庸置疑的.但是学界以及司法实践对于何为环境公益诉讼的适格原告一直存在争议,随着新《民事诉讼法》的颁布施行,关于公益诉讼原告资格的争论更是甚嚣尘上,其中,对环境行政管理机关原告资格的分歧尤甚.笔者认为,质疑的根本原因在于没有厘清环境行政执法与环境公益诉讼的关系,再加之对环境行政管理部门的单一功能定位,使得对环境管理机关作为适格原告有诸多误解.本文沿此思路,通过理论与实践的辨析,试图解决此问题.     

我国建立纳税人诉讼的几个问题

纳税人诉讼是指以纳税人身份对政府的违法公共支出行为等向法院提起的诉讼。人民主权、保障人权、税收价格论为纳税人诉讼提供了理论基础,我国宪法赋予公民监督权的规定则是其法律依据。法治发达国家普遍建立了纳税人诉讼,并开展了丰富的诉讼实践。我国建立纳税人诉讼是保护公民私有财产权、建设公共财政和法治政府、推进宪政国家建设的重要保障,具有现实迫切性和深远意义。应当在行政诉讼法的修改和税法通则的制定中,对纳税人诉讼的受案范围、原告资格、举证责任等作出特别规定。     

婚生否认之诉原告资格的立法完善和规范适用

对于婚生否认之诉的原告,目前我国法采取了明确列举的方式,所规定的原告范围较窄。当其他可能的原告起诉时,法院或严格适用法律规范,或扩大原告范围,产生了矛盾裁判。立法应当对能够成立诉权并启动司法审判的适格原告作出周全选择和判断。基于身份权的专属性及国家意欲保护的权利和价值,亲子关系的主体,即父母、子女均有婚生否认之诉原告资格;生父仅在婚生亲子关系不利于子女最佳利益或损害公共利益时,才附条件地具有婚生否认之诉原告资格;父死亡后的继承人因无专属身份关系以及身份公益优位于财产私益的法理,不具有婚生否认之诉原告资格。在立法作出周全选择后,司法实践应当准确把握婚生否认之诉属于形成之诉的本质及立法的文义和目的,遵循形成之诉原告的法定性和封闭性,不得扩大原告范围。     

船舶优先权一年时效与行使关系的探讨

船舶优先权1年的有效期在界定上和程序上存在着矛盾。该期间既不同于民法中的时效,也不同于除斥期间。其关键是扣船行为完成的时间是否必须在1年时间之内,还是请求人只要在1年期间内诉求法院便可保住船舶优先权,而具体的执行可留待将来扣住当事船舶以实现船舶优先权。从时效的概念和除斥期间的效能来分析,船舶优先权的保护应以1年内在海事法院立案为限,而不应以1年内必须扣留当事船舶为限。     

环境污染责任之违法性判断

环境污染侵权责任需以行为人之行为具有违法性为要件。对于违法性之判断,除应考虑被害人所受损害之程度外,加害人行为对于加害人自己及社会上一般大众的效益,亦应一并予以考虑。因而违法性之判断,在纠正正义与功利主义之间,如何取舍,成为环境污染责任的重要议题。     

American State Supreme Court Justices, 1900-1970

What are the paths that lead to the state supreme court bench? If we can identify these paths, can we then determine that they produce distinctive patterns in a court3 decision making? Based on a study of 694 judges who sat on 16selected American state supreme courts between 1900 and 1970, this article finds that the appellate judiciary was drawn from a variety of legal and political backgrounds rather than from any single career line. The judges came from both non-elite and elite law schools. About half had no substantial lower court judicial experience. Over one-third had been public prosecutors, another third had held other elective political office, and only a small minority had practiced in multilawyer big-city law firms. The article reports changes over time in these and other judicial characteristics (such CIS age, turnover, political party affiliations) and describes interstate differences. Few significant statistical relationships are found, however, between the background characteristics of judges and selected characteristics of state supreme court opinions.     

The Law of the Land

This article considers the status of foreign precedents in national courts. It examines possible reasons for courts referring to them and concludes that, absent some incorporating convention, judges cannot ever be said to have an obligation to refer to them. But it also shows that there is nothing unprincipled about national courts choosing to treat foreign precedents as persuasive authority, notwithstanding that there are some good reasons, especially in the context of constitutional adjudication, for cautioning against this. It is also suggested that no satisfactory argument can be adduced to support the proposition that a national court must never rely on foreign precedent as the sole reason for modifying the indigenous common law – though it seems very unlikely that judges would ever need (still less want) to rely on foreign precedent in this way.     

Event Studies and the Law: Part I: Technique and Corporate Litigation

Event studies are among the most successful uses of econometricsin policy analysis. By providing an anchor for measuring theimpact of events on investor wealth, the methodology offersa fruitful means for evaluating the welfare implications ofprivate and government actions. This article is the first ina set of two that review the use and impact of the event studymethodology in the legal domain. This article begins by brieflyreviewing the event study methodology and its strengths andlimitations for policy analysis. It then reviews in detail howevent studies have been used to evaluate the wealth effectsof corporate litigation: defendants experience economicallymeaningful and statistically significant wealth losses uponthe filing of the suit, whereas plaintiff firms experience nosignificant wealth effects upon filing a lawsuit. Also, thereis a significant wealth increase for defendant firms when theysettle a suit with another firm, in contrast to other typesof plaintiffs, and in contrast to the settling plaintiff firms.These findings suggest that, at a minimum, lawsuits are nota value-enhancing way for corporations to settle their disagreementswith other corporations. In addition, the market appears toimpose a higher sanction on firms than actual criminal sanctions,and reputational losses are of equal magnitude for civil finesas for criminal ones. The article concludes with some recommendationsfor researchers: the standards for conducting an event studyare well established; researchers can increase the power ofan event study by increasing the sample size, and by narrowingthe public announcement period to as short a time frame as possible.The companion article reviews the use of event studies in corporatelaw and regulation.     

行政诉讼确认无效判决三题

《若干解释》第 57条第 2款确立的行政诉讼确认无效判决制度在以下方面值得讨论 :第一 ,确认对象。确认无效判决须以业已成立的行政行为为对象 ,确认行政行为依法不成立在一定程度上是自相矛盾的 ;第二 ,与判决撤销的关系。一般应当作模糊处理 ,只有当原告要求宣告无效或者在常规诉讼时限之外起诉时 ,法院才有必要严格区分“无效”与“可撤销” ;第三 ,举证责任。“无效”的举证责任 ,应当由原告承担。     

Lowering the Bar: Privileged Court Filings as Substitutes for Press Releases in the Court of Public Opinion

In the civil lawsuit against Kobe Bryant for sexual assault, the judge admonished lawyers for engaging in “public relations litigation”—the use of pleadings to attract media attention and try cases in the court of public opinion. This article examines the legal ramifications of such practices and the doctrines of law that encourage some lawyers and litigants to use pleadings as a form of press release. These include the law of republication and the fair report and judicial privileges as well as the power of judges to gag trial participants. The article concludes that courts have adequate tools to control such practices, and lawyers and public relations professionals can responsibly use court documents to communicate with the public, so long as they do not abuse the judicial process.     

Personal Jurisdiction in Online Expression Cases: Rejecting Minimum Contacts in Favor of Affirmative Acts

When a speaker injures a party through online communication, the initial inquiry becomes how and where the injured party may recover damages from the internet speaker within the constitutional limits established by the 'Due Process Clause' of the constitution on the places where a plaintiff may choose to sue a defendant. The due process limits were created to prevent a plaintiff from suing a non-resident defendant in a resident's court system unless the defendant had enough contact with the state to reasonably anticipate being sued there. As cyberspace renders moot much of the geographical principles upon which jurisdictions rely, the issue of personal jurisdiction-the involuntary imposition of a forum state's legal power-emerges as a threshold issue in the law of online expression. The following paper addresses the jurisprudence of American courts in the area of personal jurisdiction, illustrating the need for clarity in this critical area of the law.     

浅议涉外网络名誉侵权案件的管辖权问题

涉外网络名誉侵权行为的实施地不易确定,损害结果地为数众多,传统民事管辖权的规则面临挑战,目前国际上在理论和司法实践中存在着不同的观点和做法。我国立法也没有明确的规定。针对网络名誉侵权行为的特点,网络名誉侵权案件应由侵权行为地法院或被告住所地法院管辖,侵权行为地包括实施被诉侵权行为的网络服务器、计算机终端等设备所在地和受害人受损害的结果地,损害结果地是指诽谤言论的传播地,同时又是原告的住所地或居所地或工商营业所所在地或法人的营业地,如果侵权行为地和损害结果地不一致,由原告选择管辖法院。     

论行政诉讼中公民死亡后的原告资格转移问题

行政诉讼原告资格转移制度所保护的是原始原告的合法权利和与原始原告有直接利害关系的承继原告的合法权利。承继原告资格的取得,应基于其所享有的身份权、名誉权、继承权、受遗赠权、公法债权、私法债权及其他合法实体权利,由此承继原告不应受现行法律规定的近亲属范围的限定。承继原告的范围应包括原始原告的近亲属和近亲属之外的遗赠抚养人、公法债权人、私法债权人、受遗赠人、原始原告生前所在的单位或基层组织以及其他利害关系人。     

环境公益诉讼原告资格的扩张

在环境法领域,放宽环境公益诉讼原告资格的限制,已成为世界各国环境立法的一个普遍趋势.为有效保护民众的环境权益,美国不断扩张环境诉讼原告资格,其经验值得研究和借鉴.根据我国的国情,在环境法领域,应当尽快建立检察机关提起公益诉讼制度和团体诉讼制度.