价格歧视行为的反垄断法分析

支配企业从事价格歧视如果产生了排斥竞争的效果,可能会构成反垄断法上所禁止的滥用行为。在进行反垄断审查时,首先须依据价格歧视的构成要件对行为进行定性,然后须进行复杂的经济分析来对该行为的竞争损害与其可能产生的效率进行权衡,从而判明是否应予禁止,并在这一原则指导下,针对各种具体歧视方式形成更具操作性的判断标准。这些研究是有效实施我国《反垄断法》第17条（6）所必需的理论基础。     

反垄断法规制相对优势地位的基础与限度

相对优势地位是一种交易中的优势，不能单靠反垄断法来规制，必须强调合同法的配合。反垄断法规制相对优势地位必须遵循一定的限度，尤其强调滥用行为的消极后果必须超出交易双方之间，对相关市场竞争造成限制或损害了消费者利益。我国现行法律对相对优势地住的规制比较零散，《反垄断法》仅将其作为判断某一企业是否构成“市场支配地位”的因素之一，并未规制相对优势地住本身。     

Can a leopard change its spots? Strategic behavior versus professional role conception during Ukraine's 2014 court chair elections

Do judges respond to institutional and strategic incentives or do they strictly follow dominant professional role conceptions? This article weighs in by exploring whether an ideational shift toward judicial empowerment and independence can germinate from institutional reforms. Ukraine's 2014 Euromaidan revolution and the comprehensive judicial reform adopted in its wake provide a test of the competing theoretical accounts. A judicial lustration law sacked all incumbent court chairs, who had been appointed by the executive, and gave Ukrainian judges the right to elect new chairs via secret ballot. I analyze this radical step toward judicial self-government using an original data set with individual- and court-level data. The key finding is that less than a fifth of Ukrainian judges embraced their newly granted agency and elected a new chair for their court, whereas the overwhelming majority followed dominant professional norms of deference and reelected the sacked court chairs. This finding holds for all rungs of the judicial hierarchy and for all regions of Ukraine. Even protégés of ousted president Yanukovych won the secret ballot vote by their peers more often than they lost it. Beyond Ukraine, these results suggest that empowering individual judges in the highly hierarchical structure of a civil law judiciary is unlikely to lead to a judicial behavior shift, at least in the short run.     

相对优势地位理论质疑

相对优势地位理论强调了企业之间的相互力量对比,并认为当交易方在一定情况下具有类似在市场中处于垄断地位的企业的市场力量时,会使得交易相对方“依赖于”该企业,从而引起竞争法上的效果。依据对资产专用性理论,从沉没成本引起的利益判断、进入障碍和市场划分的关系的分析,以及对相对优势地位理论的相关判例的解析,可以看出该理论存在重大的缺陷,其实施不仅无法规范市场竞争秩序,还会造成理论和实务上的混乱。     

Authority and Representation

The act of `setting the law' enjoysa central position in Kelsen's theory of authority.His analysis of this act criticizes, amongst others,the assumption of natural-law doctrines that norms areobjective when they duplicate a content given directlyto cognition and independently of the act whereby thenorm is enacted. Correctly, Kelsen attacks the conceptof representation underlying this assumption as anexample of metaphysical dualism and a copy theory ofknowledge. Does, then, an alternative understanding ofauthority require scrapping representation from atheory of positive law? Or does it requireinterpreting representation differently? Following thesecond path, this paper reconstructs the act ofsetting the law in terms of the critical concept ofrepresentation developed by Ernst Cassirer andsuggests how, thus reconstructed, the structure ofthis act can account for the law's authority and itscontingency.

     

“知假买假”:基于功能主义的评价标准构建与实践应用

关于"‘知假买假’者能否主张惩罚性赔偿",大部分既有研究属于形式主义争论,在说服力、精确度、合理性三方面存在不足,故应转向功能主义,重构评价标准。《消费者权益保护法》第55条第1款的制度功能为威慑与制裁。由法经济学理论与实证结果可发现,知假买假者是上述两项功能的主要执行者。然而,他们的主张不应在所有场合都获得支持。基于威慑功能,应以知假买假能否帮助提升"被追责率"为判断标准,考察欺诈行为的隐秘程度与消费者相对于维权收益的维权成本;基于制裁功能,应以知假买假打击的欺诈行为是否具有较大负外部性为评价标准,考察欺诈行为造成不特定多数消费者人身损害的可能性及程度,以及对市场竞争秩序的破坏程度。将上述标准应用于实践,可将作为知假买假对象的欺诈行为区分为"强威慑强制裁""强威慑弱制裁""弱威慑弱制裁"三种类型,并予以区别对待,从而得出更妥当的处理结论。     

Market-oriented health care reforms and policy learning in the Netherlands

In this article we analyze the evolution of market-oriented health care reforms in the Netherlands. We argue that these reforms can be characterized as policy learning within and between competing policy programs. Policy learning denotes the process by which policy makers and stakeholders deliberately adjust the goals, rules, and techniques of a given policy in response to past experiences and new information. We discern three distinctive periods. During the first period (1988-1994), the prevailing corporatist and etatist policy programs were seriously challenged by the proponents of a new market-oriented program. But when it came to political decision making and implementation, the market-oriented program soon lost its impetus because it was technically too complex and could not provide short-term solutions to meet the urgent need for cost containment. During the second period (1994-2000), the etatist program regained its previously dominant position. In parallel to a strengthening of supply and price controls, however, the government also persevered in creating the technical and institutional preconditions for regulated competition. Moreover, public discontent over waiting lists and the call for more autonomy by individual providers and insurers strengthened the alliance in favor of regulated competition. This led to the revival of the market-oriented program in a 2001 reform plan. We conclude that the odds of these new post-2001 reforms succeeding are substantially higher than in the first period due to the technical and institutional adjustments that have taken place in the past decade.     

Three Kinds of Intention in Lawmaking

The nature of legislative intent remains a subject of vigorous debate. Its many participants perceive the intent in different ways. In this paper, I identify the reason for such diverse perceptions: three intentions are involved in lawmaking, not one. The three intentions correspond to the three aspects of a speech act: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary. The dominant approach in legal theory holds that legislative intent is a semantic (locutionary) one. A closer examination shows that it is, in fact, an illocutionary one. In the paper, I draw the consequences for legal interpretation of this more theorized model of legislative intent.     

法治视野下搜查程序问题研究

侦查程序的法治化是“依法治国、建设社会主义法治国家”系统工程的重要内容之一 ,侦查程序法治化的实现 ,离不开各个具体侦查行为的法治化。搜查是刑事诉讼法规定的侦查行为之一 ,搜查行为在有效地惩罚犯罪的同时 ,极易对犯罪嫌疑人或者案外人的人身、财产及隐私权造成侵犯。本文在比较研究的基础上 ,从刑事程序法治原则、侦查程序法治原则出发 ,提出完善我国搜查程序的构想 ,以期对搜查程序的立法提供理论方面的参考。     

减价实现方式的重思与重构

围绕减价,我国主流解释论认为可由受损害方通过单方意思表示来实现,这主要源自德国法的形成权说,忽视了我国实在法体系与德国法体系的重要差异。在我国,一方面,买卖合同领域的损害赔偿奉行无过错原则,减价难觅特殊的制度功能;另一方面,由于并非奠定在解除权行使条件的基础上,减价权作为形成权来构造也缺少了关键性条件。因此,形成权说不仅逻辑欠妥,而且易使当事人之间利益失衡。在解释论上,应重视当事人之间的合意形成和司法机关的介入作用,宜将买受人主张减价的权利打造为变更合同的请求权。     

事实行为的基础规范

在构成要件的规范意义上,事实行为是产生特定事实效果,并因此导致法律效果法定化的行为,既不同于行为范畴外的自然事实和纯粹人体事实,也与法律行为和准法律行为有本质差异。从意思要素的作用来看,事实行为分为无目的意思、目的意思不独立和目的意思独立三种类型,呈现出体系化的架构。事实行为在与法律行为对立和互斥的同时,在规范关系上还有协力并存和制约并存的形态。     

再论环境侵权责任的“原罪”说

一般侵权行为成立的前提是行为的正当性,而特殊侵权行为的特殊性在于特殊行为的潜在风险性。环境侵权行为也具有潜在风险性,但其更本质的特点是改变环境或给环境带来不利影响。这种行为从一开始就注定不可避免地而不是潜在地给环境造成不利影响,这是其"原罪"之所在。让环境侵权行为人承担责任不是基于过错或其他什么理由,而是以环境侵权行为的原罪为根据。     

Attheraces v British Horseracing Board: What price abuse of dominance?

Legal context: This article concerns the interplay between the competitionrules (abuse of dominance) and intellectual property; the extentto which dominant companies are free to set the price for accessto their IP; and excessive and discriminatory pricing. Key points: The Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the BritishHorseracing Board (BHB) had not breached the competition rules.It overturned the High Court's decision that the BHB had chargedexcessive prices for access to its database of information.The Court of Appeal found that in determining whether a priceis excessive (and therefore a breach of competition law), itis not sufficient to look only at the level of the dominantcompany's return on its costs. This ‘cost +’ assessmentis only one element of the analysis which must be carried out. Practical significance: This case is apparently good news for IP owners, as it suggeststhat the legal test for showing excessive pricing is very high.However, the case also suggests that bringing a private actionto enforce the competition rules will remain extremely difficult.This may have a chilling effect on the development of the lawand in some cases may be to the public's detriment.     

疑罪问题研究

疑罪是指在刑事诉讼活动中,因证据不足而对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是否构成犯罪以及罪行轻重、此罪彼罪与一罪数罪等方面难以作出正确判断的情况。疑罪的基本特征是证据不足。疑罪可分为罪与非罪之疑罪、情节轻重之疑罪、此罪彼罪之疑罪和一罪数罪之疑罪。疑罪产生的原因是多方面的。认定疑罪要注意与疑难刑事案件相区别,把握好疑罪的认定标准,掌握好疑罪的处理原则:罪与非罪之疑适用疑罪从无;情节轻重之疑、此罪彼罪之疑和一罪数罪之疑适用疑罪从宽。贯彻好疑罪的处理原则有着重要的理论和实践意义。文章还就刑事诉讼各阶段如何具体贯彻疑罪的处理原则提出了建设性的意见。     

FRIENDS WITH MY FUTURE SELF: LONGITUDINAL VIVIDNESS INTERVENTION REDUCES DELINQUENCY

In a field experiment, we use a novel method to test whether instilling a greater sense of vividness of the future self motivates people to act in a more future‐oriented way and reduces their delinquent involvement. We manipulate vividness of the future self by having participants, a sample of high‐school youth (N = 133), “befriend” an avatar representing their future self on a social network website. For 7 days, they reply to short messages from their future self designed to trigger thinking about that distant self. Using repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), we find that participants who had been linked to their future self report less delinquent involvement, whereas controls did not. Furthermore, the results of a nonparametric bootstrapping procedure show that this effect is mediated by changes in vividness of the future self, such that increases in vividness lead to lower self‐reported delinquency. We conclude that vividness of the future self holds promise not only as a cognitive explanation for the failure to make informed cost–benefit trade‐offs but also for interventions aiming to reduce delinquency.     

Impulse control and criminal responsibility: lessons from neuroscience

Almost all of the world's legal systems recognize the "M'Naghten" exception to criminal responsibility: the inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of action. This exception rests on the assumption that punishment is morally justified only if the defendant was able to choose whether to do wrong. Jurists and jurisdictions differ, however, on whether to extend M'Naghten's logic to cases where the defendant understood the wrongfulness of an act but was incapable of resisting an impulse to commit it. In this article I ask whether contemporary neuroscience can help lawmakers to decide whether to adopt or retain this defense, known variously as the "irresistible impulse" defense or the "control" or "volitional" test for insanity. More specifically, I ask firstly, whether it is empirically true that a person can understand the wrongfulness of an act yet be powerless to refrain from committing it; and second (assuming an affirmative answer to the first), whether the law of criminal responsibility can practically accommodate this phenomenon? After canvassing the relevant neuroscientific literature, I conclude that the answer to the first question is "yes." After examining the varied treatment of the defense in the United States and other nations, I also give an affirmative answer to the second question, but only in limited circumstances. In short, the defense of irresistible impulse should be recognized, but only when it can be shown that the defendant experienced a total incapacity to control his or her conduct in the circumstances.     

经济法律责任独立性探讨

对法律责任划分标准的正确理解,是认识经济法律责任独立存在的前提条件。经济法律责任是以法律责任的部 门法性质为标准对法律责任进行分类的结果,且经济法律责任具有其独特性。独立的经济法律责任体制有利于 责权利效相统一原则的实现;更能体现经济法的"社会本位"性;充分发挥经济法作为独立部门法的作用;促进经 济法主体守法和执法。构建时,必须遵循经济法自身体系要求,体现经济法律责任自身特色,形式上可以与其他 部门法形式相交叉,可通过经济法中的民事责任、经济法中的行政责任、经济法中的刑事责任、经济法中的经济责 任的方式来实现。     

行政不作为构成要件的展开

行政不作为是与行政作为相对应的一种行政行为类型,其构成除必须具备行政行为的一般构成要件之外,还要求以行政作为义务的存在为前提条件,并具备作为之可能性、程序上逾期不为等主客观要件。展开对行政不作为构成要件的研究,对于深化行政不作为理论和正确认定行政不作为案件具有重要的理论价值和实践意义。     

Non-Tracing Cases of Culpable Ignorance

Recent writers on negligence and culpable ignorance have argued that there are two kinds of culpable ignorance: tracing cases, in which the agent’s ignorance traces back to some culpable act or omission of hers in the past that led to the current act, which therefore arguably inherits the culpability of that earlier failure; and non-tracing cases, in which there is no such earlier failure, so the agent’s current state of ignorance must be culpable in its own right. An unusual but intriguing justification for blaming agents in non-tracing cases is provided by Attributionism, which holds that we are as blameworthy for our non-voluntary emotional reactions, spontaneous attitudes, and the ensuing patterns of awareness as we are for our voluntary actions. The Attributionist explanation for why some non-tracing cases involve culpability is an appealing one, even though it has limited scope. After providing a deeper account of why we should take the Attributionist position seriously, I use recent psychological research to argue for a new account of the conditions under which agents are culpable for straightforward instances of blameworthy acts. That account is extended to blameworthiness for non-voluntary responses. I conclude that even when the agent’s failure to notice arises from a nonvoluntary objectionable attitude, very few such cases are ones in which Attributionism implies that the agent is blameworthy for her act.