Reproductive Health: Morals,Margins and Rights

Reproductive interventions and technologies have the capacity to generate profound societal unease and to provoke hostile reactions underpinned by various moral concerns. This paper shows that this position currently goes relatively unchecked by the European Court of Human Rights, which allows the margin of appreciation and consensus doctrines significantly to limit the scope of reproductive rights under the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. This occurs both in relation to the interest in avoiding reproduction at stake in abortion, and that in achieving it at stake in medically assisted reproduction. The paper demonstrates significant flaws in the Court's framing and deployment of these doctrines in its reproductive jurisprudence. It argues that, as regards existing and upcoming reproductive interventions and technologies, the Court should attend to the concept of reproductive health, long recognised in international conventions and policy materials.     

论“土地财政”的效应、成因及其法律解决之道

“土地财政”是指地方政府在财政资金短缺的情况下,主要利用土地出让法律制度和土地税费法律制度来获取财政收入以充实本地政府财源的行为.地方政府的“土地财政”行为引发了正负两方面的效应,对负效应的分析显然更为重要.地方政府的“土地财政”行为有其深刻的制度成因.解决“土地财政”的法律措施是完善财政收支法律制度,合理配置中央和地方的财政权限;改革和完善财政转移支付法律制度;改革现行的土地制度和土地征收制度.     

生育权基本问题的探讨及其法律保护

关于生育权基本问题的争议很大,学界对生育权的性质、权属主体和权能更是众说纷纭。生育权应是自然人主体享有的生育的人身自由权,是自然人人格要素之一,属人格权范畴。自然人享有平等的生育权,但男女生育权并非同等,它们在权能和内容上存在差异。男女生育权共同的权能有生育选择权、生育信息知情权等,无“生育隐私权”权能,且生育选择权受到限制,是相对的选择权。女性生育权较男性生育权具有更多的可选择内容和更大的知情权范围。此外,女性生育权还独有生育健康权权能。生育权的法律保护有待完善,最高院《关于适用〈婚姻法〉若干问题的解释（三）》（征求意见稿）第十条需加修改。     

法律论证相对合理性的原因分析

在司法过程中,法律论证是对法律解释、漏洞补充所确认的作为法律推理大前提的法律的正当性、合理性所作的说明。由 于历史因素、文化因素、个体因素和法律自身的因素等的存在,法律论证只能实现相对的合理性而不能实现绝对的合理性。     

中国法学会行政法学研究会举行年会选举新一届理事会

中国法学会行政法学研究会于 8月 1 1日在宁夏银川市召开年会,选举产生第五届理事会。理事会计理事 1 35名 ,常务理事 4 9名 ,副会长 1 6名 ,会长 1名。会议还讨论了《中华人民共和国行政程序法试拟稿 (专家意见稿 )》。名誉会长 :罗豪才 (全国政协副主席 )会长 :应松年 (国家行政学院教授 )副会长 :(以姓氏笔划为序 )马怀德 (中国政法大学教授 )　　　　　　　　方世荣 (湖北行政学院教授 )冯　军 (中国社会科学院法学所研究员 )叶必丰 (上海交通大学法学院教授 )朱维究 (中国政法大学教授 )江必新 (最高人民法院副院长 )张春生 (全国人大…     

健康公平的法律本质解读

医疗体制改革制度构建的宗旨在于实现健康公平,当前对于健康公平的法律本质予以解读显得尤为重要.应从实然性角度来理解健康公平,其是机会公平与结果公平的结合;健康公平体现为对公民健康权的公平保障、体现为社会法视域中的实质公平.同时,健康公平法律本质的实现要依赖于卫生服务筹资、提供、利用三个环节的公平性,也要借助法律制度从权利公平、程序公平两方面来予以制度性保障.     

论法律文书歧义句的负面影响、成因及消解

歧义句是指其意义存在两种或两种以上理解的句子。法律文书歧义句影响办案的效率,增加司法机关办案负担,损害有关当事人的利益。法律文书语言歧义句是由于词语的多义性、词义范围过大、结构多样性、语序不当、标点符号使用不当、施受关系不明和指代不明等原因造成的。法律文书歧义句可采用选用单义词语、追加语境,运用限制、标点符号、明确施受关系和指代对象等方法消解。     

When Worlds Collide: Enforcing United Nations Security Council Asset Freezes in the EU Legal Order

Asset freezes are since 2000 being applied by the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC) to non-state actors. This came about as a 'mutation' of the sanctions program initiated by Resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000) and 1390 (2002): currently the targets are only supected terrorists or terrorism financiers.
This 'mutation' has created perplexities and problems, namely for the EU, which enforces UN SC Resolutions by a combination of first and second pillar methods. The main problem concerns issues of fundamental rights, currently being litigated.
The debate on the compatibility of the current practice of UN SC asset freezing within EU law takes place amidst a fundamental lack of clarity as to the exact purposes and operational objectives of such freezes. It is argued that this practice amounts to an ad hoc (para-)criminal procedure measure, enacted by political bodies rather than courts, and without judicial oversight.
The current UN SC practice of asset freezing against non-state actors breaches the right to judicial review, as well as the presumption of innocence. If this practice it is to continue at all, methods that make it fully compatible with the rule of law must be adopted. Especially, their renewal ad aeternum should not be possible.