浅析民事诉讼证据排除规则的价值理论

本文指出证据排除规则是围绕证据能力问题对证据的取舍做出判断的重要制度,证据排除规则应该追求公正、效率、加强人权保护与实现司法文明等价值。     

加拿大禁止重复诉讼的识别标准及其演变

基于一事不再理原则，诉讼不得以同一事件或争点重复提出。加拿大判例确立的禁止重复诉讼适用标准避免了对相同事件或争点的重复诉讼和反复判断。禁止重复诉讼判例规则的适用固然有维护法律安定和权成之功效，但是过于机械地将其绝对化，也会损害诉讼公正性。因此，加拿大已存的禁止重复诉讼判例规则不可能尽善尽美和一成不变，而是处于不断发展和演变之中。加拿大的一些重要案例，不仅展示了禁止重复诉讼规则的识别标准，也反映了其演变过程。本文试就加拿大禁止重复诉讼规则的适用标准及其演变作一介绍和分析，以期为我国提供参考和借鉴。     

论民事缺席审判制度的法理基础

缺席审判是当事人一方未到庭法庭依法继续进行审理的制度。公正与效率是司法改革的基础,实现诉讼公正和诉讼效率也是是民事缺席审判制度的两大法理基础。缺席审判制度体现了诉讼公正价值对诉讼制度设置的基本要求,体现了法律在民事诉讼程序中对公正价值的追求和遵守。本文指出缺席审判制度的价值还同时体现在节约诉讼成本,提高诉讼效率,追求诉讼时间的经济性。     

民事案件事实争点释明模式建构

相较于二审法官,一审民事法官的工作较多地集中于事实认定上,而精准的事实认定离不开科学的事实争点整理工作。在这个层面上,说事实争点整理是基层民事法官的一门必修课,是不为过的。这些琐碎的工作,表面上看起来对审判结果影响不大,深究下去,却关乎当事人的切身权利,与诉讼公正与效率的实现密切相关。但是,一方面,我国民事诉讼理论界对事实争     

民事判决理由效力的法理基础

民事判决的理由是否具有拘束力,以及具有何种拘束力,这一问题属理论盲区。在民事判决数量持续激增、系列案件频发及裁判文书要“释法说理”的大背景下,回答这一问题具有紧迫性。在实然和应然角度,民事判决理由效力的正当性存在着预决效力、争点效力和参加效力等解释路径,分别反映不同的制度目的,对应于不同的程序保障标准和价值判断空间,体现不同程度的正当性。预决效力可通过免证事实机制缩小证明范围,能够提升诉讼效率,但保障证明权是其适用的前提条件,对后诉事实认定的拘束力较弱,难以为判决理由效力提供正当性支撑。争点效力与民事判决理由效力的关联最紧密,可与既判力形成合理分工。既判力原则上只及于判决主文,而争点效及于判决的理由,借助于价值判断机制落实诉讼诚信原则,阻断生效判决认定的争点事实再次被后诉当事人争执,维护裁判统一。参加效力立足于责任分担理念和诉讼担当法理,为判决理由向无独立请求权第三人及案外第三人扩张提供正当性法理基础。以此为基础的类型化分析,则可廓清判决理由效力适用范围,扩大判决理由拘束效果。     

论何时提请排除非法证据

目前我国尚未形成健全的非法证据排除规则,导致在何时提请排除非法证据等具体问题上缺乏保障。事实上应该将我国非法证据排除的提请时间前置于庭前,改革庭前审查程序,由独立受案庭进行审查、决定是否排除,以此推动证据开示制度的发展,提高诉讼效率,保障诉讼公正。     

证据排除规则的重构——以诉讼效率为视角

诉讼效率指诉讼收益与诉讼成本之间的差额。诉讼收益主要体现为发现真实,而诉讼成本主要体现为证据的收集与认定成本。证据排除规则既可以保障发现案件真实,亦可以保护其他合法利益,但我国目前的证据法没有能够从提供诉讼效率的角度去设计证据排除规则,我国诉讼法中不同的诉讼采用相同的证明标准是这一现象出现的重要原因。     

论辩诉交易制度及其在中国司法实践中的借鉴

辩诉交易是国外的一项基本的刑事诉讼制度，它在刑事犯罪案件不断飙升的背景下产生，在提高结案效率，减少诉讼成本方面都起到了积极作用。因此辩诉交易制度作为彰显刑事诉讼效率价值的制度设置，越来越受到各国的重视。但是这一制度在追求效率的同时不可避免的增加了诉讼风险，使得追求公正有所折扣。如何平衡效率与公正的问题就成了我们今天所要面临的问题。与此同时，我们还不得不面对我国的司法体制与国外司法体制存在根本不同这一问题。     

民事诉讼简易程序中的诉讼公正与诉讼效率

民事诉讼简易程序的产生是伴随着诉讼制度的完善和对诉讼效率追求的基础之上的。但同时,任何一个程序的建立都是需要遵守公平公正原则的。本文就民事诉讼简易程序中的诉讼公正与诉讼效率问题做一探讨。     

美国专利无效案件中“既决事项”初探

美国既决事项规则包括请求权排除原则和争点排除原则,本文通过美国专利无效相关案例探讨请求权排除原则和争点排除原则的具体适用,并相应地分析了我国与既判力有关的司法规定,以及一些思考和建议.     

Legislative and educational alternatives to a judicial remedy for the transfer trauma dilemma

Transfer trauma is alleged to be an increase in morbidity and mortality in institutionally relocated chronically ill elderly. Efforts by the legal profession to persuade courts that transfer trauma should be a legally recognized phenomenon invoking judicial protections against transfer (the "transfer trauma argument") have been unproductive. In O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, Inc., the United States Supreme Court denied standing to elderly persons claiming a property interest in remaining in alleged substandard facilities. The Court rejected the argument that the possibility of transfer trauma constituted a deprivation of life or liberty that would have required due process protections of notice and hearing. Despite the Court's preclusion of transfer trauma litigation in a constitutional context and the general unwillingness of lower courts to recognize the phenomenon, attorneys continue to burden the judicial system with frivolous transfer trauma arguments. The unfruitful pursuit of a judicial remedy for the ethical and social problems that arise with relocation of the elderly continues, in part, because of a misguided belief that this distressing social phenomenon is best remedied by the courts. Judicial unwillingness to recognize the transfer trauma argument, however, does not preclude legislative consideration of the humanitarian issues concerning the institutional relocation of elderly persons. This Article examines gerontological research in order to understand the judicial rejection of the transfer trauma argument and argues in support of legislative and educational solutions for the ethical and social problems attending transfer.     

Social Security preclusions in personal injury litigation

This editorial scrutinises the impact of preclusion periods for social security entitlements upon personal injury practice. It identifies the differences in calculation in respect of the compensation part of lump sum payments, depending upon whether a plaintiff's case is settled or resolved by litigation. It examines the effect of s 1184K of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) and the circumstances in which the discretion to reduce or waive the preclusion period has been exercised in favour of recipients of lump sum payments. It argues that room remains for creative arguments on behalf of plaintiffs, highlighting the potential for the compensatory effect of the lump sum to be undercut if the preclusion provisions are fully applied.     

Agency Law and Contract Formation

Various issues in the common law arise when agents make contractson behalf of principals. Should a principal be bound when hisagent makes a contract on his behalf that he would immediatelywish to disavow? The tradeoffs resemble those in tort, so theleast-cost avoider principle is useful for deciding which agreementsare binding and can unify a number of different doctrines inagency law. In particular, an efficiency explanation can befound for the undisclosed-principal rule, under which the agent'sagreement binds the principal even when the third party withwhom the contract is made is unaware that the agent is actingas an agent.     

防卫意图是正当防卫理论的短板

正当防卫理论中的防卫意图,对于认定防卫人的行为是否成立正当防卫以及认定防卫过当行为的性质具有重要意义。然而,防卫意图这个主观要件已经成为正当防卫理论中的薄弱环节,司法实践也长期忽视防卫意图的评价功能。防卫意图不要说具有重大缺陷,在认定行为人的行为是否成立正当防卫时,仍应将防卫意图作为必不可少的构成要件。应将防卫意图理解为对意志因素的表达,即指行为人主观上制止不法侵害的愿望或追求。当防卫人制止不法侵害的行为明显超过必要限度时,若防卫人对此有明确认识,则不成立防卫过当,应以故意犯罪认定;反之,成立防卫过当。正当防卫意图的本质决定了防卫过当的行为属性是过失犯罪而非故意犯罪。     

Special Issue on Recklessness and Negligence

Criminal Law and Philosophy - This paper introduces the Special Issue on Recklessness and Negligence. It highlights the main issues and controversies that surround these concepts and then briefly...     

论已确认事实的预决力

已确认事实的预决力既不同于裁判的既判力,也有别于"争点效"和"争点排除规则",其是我国民事诉讼法确立的一项具有独特内涵的制度。然而,由于我国民事诉讼法未明确预决力的条件和范围,从而致使司法实践中法院的做法各不相同,这种状况一方面有损法院判决的一致性、权威性,也与确立预决力制度的初衷相违背,因此,民事诉讼法的修改应明确预决力的条件和范围。实践中,法院应根据已确认事实的不同具体认定其不同的预决力。     

民事法官能动性:权利保障与权力回应——兼析规则与法官能动性共生的民事司法模式之构建

民事法官所享有的依法合理解释、平衡、选择法律以及填补法律缺漏的特有能动性是两大法系国家的一致选择。审视我国法官能动性所经历的严苛限制、悄然使之到日益凸显的过程,揭示了处于经验层面的法官能动性的失范现象及其主要根源。为确保法官能动性应有功效的发挥,我们应着力从核心理念、追求目标、基本原则、明析规则、技术规范和配套措施等方面构建具有中国特色的法律规则与法官能动性共生的民事司法运作模式,以强调法律解释和辩证推理等司法技术在解决法律确定性弱化问题的功用时,克服逻辑推演的局限性,实现民事诉讼之目的。     

CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES*

Criminologists continue to debate fundamental issues about the nature of their work. Some of the issues were built into the field by the criminal anthropologists who founded it a century ago. By examining the work of major American criminal anthropologists—a nearly forgotten group—one can identify the origins of three enduring problems: criminology's difficulties in (1) establishing its disciplinary boundaries; (2) defining its methods: and (3) deciding whether its primary goal is crime control or the production of knowledge with no immediate use-value. The study of criminology's roots in criminal anthropology cannot settle these debates, but it can put them in historical perspective and clarify their substance.     

Animals In Law: Introduction

This essay opens the Special Issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law dedicated to Animality, entitled “Animals in Law”. It focuses on revealing the principal issues faced in the volume, by positioning the contributors’ works into the general theoretical perspectives which shape the social discourse over animals.     

生态文明建设与环境法的正义追求

环境法产生和兴起于环境危机的时代,在法律领域承载着应对环境危机的历史使命。环境法的基本品格和历史使命决定了环境法成为保障和促进生态文明的首要法律部门。以生态文明为基本理念,根据生态文明建设的基本要求,环境法呈现出完全不同于传统法律部门的价值追求。作为环境法的核心价值,环境法的正义追求表现为多面的正义,包括代内正义、代际正义和人际正义。环境法的正义追求以实现人与自然的和谐共处为终极目的,这同时也是生态文明建设的题中之义。