儿童利益最大化原则在学前教育立法中的落实

在学前教育立法中落实儿童利益最大化原则,应以明确儿童利益最大化原则的合理内涵为前提条件,以在立法中列举评判儿童最大利益的各项要素为重要内容,以建立程序性机制为重要保障。我国《学前教育法草案》还存在弱化儿童利益最大化原则地位、评估儿童最大利益的考量因素过少、缺乏儿童利益最大化原则的程序性保障等不足。我国应当在学前教育立法中凸显儿童利益最大化原则的法律地位,明确儿童最大利益的评估标准与确定机制,制定落实儿童利益最大化原则的程序性机制。     

我国治疗性家事司法制度的构建

治疗性家事司法制度希望通过增加法律的治疗性效果,减少家事纠纷解决过程和结果给人带来的消极影响,在保护个体自由和权利的同时也保证儿童最大利益的实现。近年来,我国的家事审判改革已初步呈现出“治疗性”的特征,但也存在解纷价值重家庭而轻个体、解纷程序心理学要素不足、解纷者角色未能转换等问题。这使得家事司法制度的治疗功能未能得到有效发挥,未成年人的最大利益也没有获得应有的重视。我国需要依据是否涉及未成年子女来确定家事案件繁简分流的特别标准,对涉及未成年子女的家事案件适用治疗性家事司法,并且从加强对个体幸福的关注、重视心理学作用以及重塑纠纷解决者角色等方面推动我国治疗性家事司法制度的构建。     

论“儿童最大利益优先原则”在我国的确立——兼论《婚姻法》等相关法律的不足及其完善

1959年《儿童权利宣言》和1989年《儿童权利公约》等国际文献均倡导规定,在处理与儿童有关的问题时,应以儿童最大利益为首要考虑。目前,世界上许多国家在婚姻家庭法的立法或司法实践中都确立了“儿童最大利益优先原则”。我国政府历来十分重视保护儿童利益,我国宪法以及《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》都对儿童利益的保护作出了原则性规定。但2001年修正后的《中华人民共和国婚姻法》至今尚未明确规定“儿童最大利益优先原则”。为实现我国宪法有关“国家尊重和保护人权”的承诺,故亟须在我国婚姻家庭法中确立儿童最大利益的优先权准则,并对相关法律制度予以修改和完善。     

《儿童权利公约》与我国儿童证人权利制度之完善

儿童证人是刑事诉讼中特殊的诉讼参与人。《儿童权利公约》确立了对儿童权益保护的一般原则，有关国际文件也确立了儿童证人在刑事诉讼中所应享有的诉讼权利。国外的刑事诉讼立法有的也对儿童证人权利制度作了规定。比较而言，我国儿童证人权利制度内容贫乏，既不能满足司法实践对儿童证人保护的需要，也没有体现公约及有关国际文件的要求。应从免于宣誓等方面构建我国儿童证人权利制度。     

论家事诉讼中未成年人的程序保障

基于程序主体性理念及儿童利益最大化的要求，家事诉讼中应给予利益相关的未成年人以特别的程序保障。我国家事诉讼中未成年人的程序保障存在制度性缺失，这是因为我国诉讼行为能力立法技术存在局限性、父母并不能全然充当未成年人最大利益的代表者。填补这一缺失的路径包括扩张未成年人的诉讼行为能力，使已具意思表达能力的未成年人能独立参与诉讼；设置程序辅助人，代表未成年人表达意见；设置家事调查员等司法辅助人员，辅助调查与未成年人利益相关的案件事实。     

剩留知识的使用与控制研究——美国判例研究及其对我国立法与司法的启示

美国法院在剩留知识使用权司法审判实践中所确立的向雇员或被许可人利益倾斜保护的法律政策,以及诉讼程序上对雇主或许可人科以较重的举证责任来实施法律政策的路径,可以为我国将来对剩留知识使用权保护的立法和司法实践所借鉴。本文在总结美国司法判例的基础上,对我国在这方面的立法和司法提出了几个具体建议。     

我国家事非讼程序的立法设计——诉讼与非讼二元并立格局

家事案件从程序的角度可分为家事诉讼案件和家事非讼案件两大类型,域外大陆法系国家和地区在其单独的家事程序法中,大都依据案件类型实现了家事纠纷解决程序的“诉讼与非讼二元并立格局”。我国没有单独的家事程序法,也没有诉讼与非讼程序分别立法的历史传统,因此,法院在适用“大一统”的《民事诉讼法》处理家事案件过程中,形成了诉讼与非讼案件全面“争讼化”的一元格局状态。随着我国家事审判改革的进一步深化,以及《民法典》“婚姻家庭编”和“继承编”对家事实体法律规范的完善,要制定单独的“家事程序法”,首先要充分认识到家事诉讼程序与家事非讼程序相互独立的地位,并基于案件类型与程序相称论、诉讼法理与非讼法理二元分离以及交错适用等理论,从立法上确立“诉讼与非讼二元并立格局”。进而从家事非讼程序的适用范围、审理原则、基本制度及统合处理等几方面,在诉讼法理和非讼法理交错适用的基础上,科学设置与家事诉讼程序相互独立的家事非讼程序,以充分发挥家事非讼程序的特殊司法功能,最终妥善及统合地处理复杂的家事案件。     

浅论民事诉讼中的送达制度

我国目前的民事诉讼法中对送达程序的规定过于原则,侧重于职权主义,其目的主要在于保障诉讼进行,而非保障当事人的程序利益。作为保障司法程序公正之一的送达程序在现代司法理念的的框架下,显示出其改革的必要性。程序本位是首先要确立的一种诉讼理念,只有这种理念在法律原则和具体规则中得到了首尾一致的体现,才能保障程序利益的实现。本文在此基础上,提出送达制度的改革构想。     

实现我国法官独立的不利因素解读——以司法环境为视角

法官独立是司法独立原则的核心,其实现受司法环境的制约。制约法官独立的司法环境因素约可分为内外八项。由于这八项司法环境因素在我国并不成熟,法官独立并未确立,也远未实现。中国在立法上已确立的司法机关依照法律独立行使职权原则,不以法官独立为核心,其真正实现也有待司法改革和诉讼法律制度的完善等司法环境因素的成熟。     

家事审判方式改革的方向与路径

家事案件形态多样,非讼与诉讼法理交错适用.我国未来应当根据案件类型塑造家事程序:对家事争讼案件适用辩论原则,对婚姻案件适用有限的职权探知原则,在家事非讼程序中则适用职权探知原则.此外,家事程序在调解与临时救济方面也具有特殊性.为了实现家事审判的专业化、集中化和保障裁判统一,我国未来不仅有必要实行集中管辖与程序集中原则以及创设灵活的管辖权转移规则,而且还可以尝试构建家事法院并选任掌握专业知识与丰富经验的家事法官,并尝试初步引入强制律师制度.     

Guardians Ad Litem and Children's Attorneys in Arizona: A Qualitative Examination of the Roles

An ongoing debate exists with little research support concerning the differences in the roles of guardians ad litem (GAL) and children's attorneys (CA) in dependency cases. Through qualitative interviews, this study examined GALs’ and CAs’ perceptions and execution of roles. Both executed their roles similarly and agreed the best interests of the child and the child's wishes are important. Shared goals included child safety, ensuring the child's voice is heard, keeping the family together, and minimizing the distress to the child. Challenges to executing their roles were often systemic, including overwhelmed courts and lack of community resources to serve clients’ needs.     

TIPPINS AND WITTMANN ASKED THE WRONG QUESTION:

Tippins and Wittmann (2005) provide an important analysis of the limitations of child custody evaluations, but they are wrong to propose that court-appointed evaluators should be precluded from making recommendations about best interests decisions. While some of the evidence of evaluators may fail to meet the high standard of reliability expected for "expert evidence," the role of court-appointed evaluators in child-related cases is not the same as the role of party-retained experts in other types of litigation, and the legal basis for their involvement in the family law dispute resolution process is very different. The family courts should not apply the "expert evidence" standard when deciding how to use the evidence of a court-appointed evaluator, but rather should use a more flexible standard that takes account of the family law context. If the Tippins and Wittmann proposal is adopted, it will have negative implications for the resolution of family law cases, including making settlements less common, thereby deleteriously affecting children.     

ARE WE REALLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD? APPLYING THE NEW ZEALAND MODEL OF FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES TO CASES OF CHILD NEGLECT IN THE UNITED STATES

This Note advocates for state laws to be amended to implement family group conferencing (FGC) as the first step in cases of alleged child neglect. FGC was developed in New Zealand nearly twenty years ago and have since become a realistic method of balancing the best interests of the children, families, agencies, courts, and communities involved in the child welfare system. A FGC is a meeting among family members and professionals that is conducted in order to develop a plan for a child who is the victim of neglect. FGC places the family at the center of the welfare proceedings and empowers them to reach a solution without having to resort to the often lengthy and expensive adversarial court system. If FGC is incorporated into the child welfare systems throughout the United States, communication between the parents, social services, and the courts could increase, helping families adequately address the problem of neglect and getting the children out of the child welfare system quickly and more efficiently.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.     

刑事诉讼法时间效力规则研究

我国刑事诉讼立法及相关规范未对刑事诉讼法的时间效力问题予以明确,使得法秩序变迁下刑事程序的新旧流转出现了规范适用疑难。对此,学界通常认为应当适用程序从新原则,但相关理解与界说存在问题。在规范论上,基于法律即行适用与法不溯及既往,可以推导出刑事诉讼法的时间效力适用行为时法原则。对于尚未终结的诉讼,因新程序与旧事实可能无法相容,适用行为时法难免对旧事实造成影响,但这只是不真正溯及,不违反法不溯及既往原则。在立法论上,除应明确行为时法原则外,由于法律的不真正溯及仍可能实质损害法不溯及既往背后的法安定性及信赖保护原则,立法者宜通过信赖利益保护理论,预先识别需要保护的信赖利益,继而选择适当的立法方案将此类例外纳入刑事诉讼法体系。     

论我国规制网络言论立法之完善

法律在规制网络言论中具有重要作用,目前世界上多数国家都有规制网络言论的法律规定。我国规制网络言论的立法覆盖面广,各领域基本做到了有法可依,但存在立法层次低、权威性不够以及法制不统一等问题。完善规制网络言论的立法,应遵循必要性原则、明确性原则和公众参与原则。国务院应加强对行政法规、规章的审查和清理工作。全国人大常委会应适时出台《网络信息管理法》和《个人信息保护法》。     

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。     

CHILDREN,THE UNCRC,AND FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES

There is no doubt that, overall, there has been a great deal of activity in relation to children's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was ratified by the UK government in 1991. Of particular significance in the context of family law, however, are the provisions of Article 12, which have in many ways proved to be more problematic than other provisions, not least because, in the context of family law, children's participation rights are necessarily juxtaposed with the long‐standing and hitherto unchallenged rights of parents to make important decisions about family life. The reorganisation in 2001 of the family court welfare services in England and Wales with the creation of the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), generated a new impetus for the consideration of children's participation rights and, at an organizational level, considerable progress has been made in embracing the provisions of the UNCRC. More problematic, however, is the acceptance of children's participation in making decisions about their futures by adults using and working in the family justice system. At the level of the courts, judicial attitudes are slow to change and in England, as court judgments often demonstrate, these are firmly rooted in a view of children as being incompetent in such issues; at the level of parents using the system, it is arguable that new discourses about the best interests of the child serve as a proxy for continuing discourses about parents’ rights that have become evident, most recently, in the context of an increasingly influential fathers’ rights lobby; and at the level of welfare practitioners, recent research also demonstrates that, although the rhetoric of children's rights is widely accepted, the willingness and ability to make these real in the context of family proceedings is, for a variety of reasons, less in evidence.     

浅论医疗投诉之法律监督与权利救济

医疗机构、医务人员和患者是医疗卫生法律明确规定的利益共同体,但从部分法院近期裁判情况看,各地在认定患者是否具备行政诉讼原告资格方面存在明显差异。结合新《行政诉讼法》调整原告资格的双重背景和最高人民法院裁判精神,在医患关系有待改善和卫生执法水平尚待提高的情况下,应充分肯定患者与医疗投诉处理结果的利害关系,以发挥司法审判和复议审查在推动提升卫生执法水平与保障群众健康权益方面的双轮驱动作用。     

论立法体制的完善

推进科学立法,关键是完善立法体制.在职权立法体制中,应明确权力机关与行政机关之间、人大与人大常委会之间、权力机关上下级之间和行政机关上下级之间立法职权的划分.在授权立法体制中,应明晰全国人大及其常委会授权国务院制定行政法规,全国人大授权经济特区所在地的省、市人大及其常委会制定经济特区法规,全国人大及其常委会授权暂时调整...