犯罪故意认定的证据法学解读

实体法上广为讨论的犯罪故意认定问题,最终要在司法证明过程中进行.在罪过难辨的疑案中,裁判者应坚持无罪推定原则,作为区分故意与过失的最后一道屏障.对于故意这种“无法定义只能描述”的复杂心理现象,以实体法上的抽象概念去界定不如以证据法上直观的类型化判断来把握.故意“概念的类型化”,是以认识程度和意志程度之强度互补的弹性组合...     

Marr v Collie: The Ballooning of the Common Intention Constructive Trust

The decision in Marr v Collie represents a significant expansion of the common intention constructive trust doctrine. Unsupported by authority, it relaxes the requirement that the property be acquired for a ‘domestic’ purpose, and widens the doctrine to encompass all property, whether real or personal. The decision's abrogation of the ‘purpose’ restriction redraws the line between the common intention constructive trust doctrine and the presumed resulting trust doctrine and expands the former to the greatest possible extent. This exacerbates a doctrine already apt to adversely affect both individual litigants and the justice system as a whole, and which creates incongruous theoretical divisions within the law of intentionally created trusts. As the doctrine is reliant on the proposition, unsupported by authority or legislation, that conveyance of a title to land into joint names necessarily gives rise to a trust, it is hoped that a future apex court will reconsider the doctrine's proper scope.     

Intoxication as a defence to murder in Seychelles

In Seychelles, the mens rea of murder can be established, as an alternative to an intention to cause death or grievous harm, on the basis of the defendant’s ‘knowledge’ that the act or omission causing death will probably cause death or grievous harm. However, a defendant is only allowed to plead intoxication as a defence where it had become impossible for him to form the necessary ‘intention’ due to intoxication. This article highlights the difficulties in the application of the defence of intoxication to cases where the mens rea for murder is based purely on a defendant’s ‘knowledge’. In analysing the defence of intoxication in Seychelles in cases of murder, the article examines the position under English and Australian law.     

The International Law of Naval Blockade and Israel’s Interception of the Mavi Marmara

In this article I discuss the legality of Israel’s interception of the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010. Although Israel’s stopping, boarding and inspection of the Mavi whilst on the high seas would undoubtedly constitute a violation of the law of the sea during peace time, I examine whether this violation can be justified on the basis of international humanitarian law. Specifically, Israel asserts that it was enforcing a naval blockade. I examine the legality of this blockade. I suggest that the blockade was unlawful on the basis that customary international humanitarian law permits the use of naval blockades only in times of an international armed conflict. I argue that on 31 May 2010 Israel was not engaged in an international armed conflict with Hamas. Moreover, I submit that customary international law prohibits the use of blockades where they are intended to deny the civilian population objects essential for its survival or where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Israel argues that the intention of the blockade was to prevent war material from being delivered to Hamas fighters. This notwithstanding, I argue that because this blockade was causing a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza on 31 May 2010, it was incompatible with customary international law and therefore unlawful. Furthermore, even if the deployment of the blockade could be considered lawful, I argue that the enforcement of the blockade was unlawful because Israel’s use of force to capture the vessel went beyond what was necessary in the circumstances.

     

英国刑法犯罪故意的构造分析

我国刑法学界对于英国刑法中的犯罪故意在理解上值得反思,英国刑法犯罪故意需从判例法和制定法这个角度加以理解.将英国判例法立场的变化归纳为几种并存的学说不够客观,同时,认为英国刑法在该问题上是以认识为本质理解犯罪故意的观点也不能成立.英国判例法在这个问题上既有原则性又有灵活性,尽管这种弹性是我国司法部门不可能做到的,但是英国刑法同样对于我们具有一定的借鉴意义.     

Staging Power: Marx, Hobbes and the Personification of Capital

This article raises questions about the nature and status of the persona behind which contemporary capital operates. It does so by developing Marx's comments on personification in a very different direction to that intended by him, taking them, via Hobbes, into the deeper recesses of company law. The argument that develops is that modern law has facilitated the mechanism by which capital dominates civil society, an argument illustrated through the veil of the corporate persona worn by capital. The rhetorical trope around which the argument is organized is the stage of power; the barely-mentioned backdrop is the possibility of real resistance to corporate power; the broader intention is to help develop the Marxist theory of law. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Legislative Intentions and Counterfactu-als: Or,What One Can Still Learn from Dworkin's Critique of Legal Positivism

Riggs v. Palmer has become famous since Dworkin used it to show that legal positivism is defective. The debate over the merits of Dworkin's claims is still very lively. Yet not enough attention has been paid to the fact that the content of the statute at issue in Riggs was given by the counterfactual intention of the legislature. According to arguments from legislative intent, a judicial decision is justified if it is based on the lawmaker's intention. But can legislative intentions be determined counterfactually? More generally, what are the discursive commitments undertaken by a lawyer or a judge, in an exchange of legal reasons, when using this interpretive methodology? This paper addresses these issues considering, in particular, David Lewis's “resemblance” condition and “relevant similarity” between possible worlds in the evaluation of counterfactual statements. The analysis sheds some new light on the debate on theoretical disagreements and shows that Dworkin's conception of law as an argumentative practice is not necessarily at odds with legal positivism. It rather allows us to look at it under a better light.     

A Normative Approach to the Quistclose Trust

This is the first article to undertake a sustained analysis of normative justifications for the Quistclose trust. Whilst much of the existing writing on this topic has focused on the better classification of such trusts – for instance, whether they are express, resulting, constructive or sui generis – this article asks why the law should recognise a trust in addition to any underlying legal relationship. Four key justifications are addressed, based on respecting party intention, unconscionability, fairness, and the incentivisation of desirable transactions. It will be argued that: (i) there are difficulties with each of these justifications, although an intention‐focused explanation is probably the most convincing; and (ii) the existing law and commentary lacks coherence and consistency, as seen in the mismatch between normative and doctrinal analysis, and the failure to properly address the ramifications of the Quistclose trust during insolvency.     

重大过失理论的构建

传统大陆民法理论关于重大过失的解说既无法提供明确的认定方法,又内在地欠缺解释力。重大过失应当是一种有认识的过失,但同时须在客观上制造了巨大的危险。它是一种偏主观的、行为人很大程度上可避免的过错,是一种具有较强道德可责难性的过错。它是介于故意与普通过失之间、更接近于故意的一种独立过错类型。有认识的认定应坚持知道与有理由知道两级分类,并有效运用司法推论和立法推定。危险巨大性的认定主要涉及损害可能性与损害程度两方面判断。重大过失的法律效果原则上与故意相同,但有例外。     

The Inevitability of Moral Evaluation*

According to contemporary legal positivism, law claims to create obligations. In order for law to be able to create obligations, it must be capable of having authority. Legal positivism claims that for law to be capable of having authority, it only has to meet non‐moral or non‐normative conditions of authority. In this paper it is argued that law can only be capable of having authority if it also meets certain normative conditions. But if something must meet certain normative conditions in order to be capable of having authority and if it must be capable of having authority in order to be law, then it is only law if it is conceivable that it meets these normative conditions and this can only be ascertained by means of an evaluation. Therefore, legal positivism's claim that determining what the law is does not necessarily, or conceptually, depend on moral or other evaluative considerations (the separation thesis) is incompatible with its claim that law must be able to create obligations. Further, an analysis of Hart's concept of law shows that it is not only possible that the identification of the law depends on moral evaluation, as Hart claims, but that it is conceptually necessary that it does.     

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital – Parliamentary Intention and Damages Caused by Maladministration of a Contractual Dismissal Procedure

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58 [2012] 2 W.L.R. 55 the Supreme Court addressed the following question: is an employee, who can establish that (a) if a contractual disciplinary process had been correctly administered he would have been exonerated, and (b) thereafter employed until retirement, able to sue for loss of the earnings that he would have acquired until retirement? Three members of the Supreme Court held that such a remedy was not reconcilable with the enactment, originally in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, of a statutory unfair dismissals protection regime. It was Parliament's intention that an employee should not be able to outmanoeuvre the statute's compensation limitation rules by deploying a superior common law remedy. This note considers that reading of Parliament's intention.     

法国二元论体系中的故意

法国1994年新刑法典规定“无实行重罪或轻罪之故意,即无重罪或轻罪”,从而首次将故意提升到总则的高度,并确定了以惩罚故意为原则,惩罚过失为例外的政策。本文从故意在法国的“行为-行为人”二元论体系中的位置入手,分析了故意的内容、类别及犯罪的特殊样态中的故意,展现出法国不同于其他大陆法系国家的独特的犯罪故意理论,并在结论中指出法国刑法理论研究的实用主义对我国的借鉴作用。     

公用企业合法垄断之否定

传统的观点认为,公用企业是典型的自然垄断行业,同时也受到了法律的厚爱。但现实中,它不仅没有达到立法者的良好初衷,反而从一个社会福祉的创造者蜕变成了狭隘的经济人,而且是一个有着国家意志和行政权力作掩护的更容易掠夺消费者的经济人,对社会利益造成了极大的损害。本文通过对必要性和可行性分析,肯定了公用企业也应该适用反垄断法,并就此考察了几个特殊问题。     

刑法上的财产占有概念

刑法上的占有是指对物的事实上控制与支配 ,它的成立必须兼具客观支配状态与占有意思两个要件。自罗马法以来 ,就存在着民法与刑法上占有的区别。较之于民法上的占有 ,刑法占有的客观支配形态更为现实 ,主观占有意思更具规范成份 ,占有性质合法与否也不重要 ,这与两种占有制度在法律体系中的地位与功能密切相关。几种特殊情形的占有归属 ,如存在上下主从关系的占有、共同占有、以及包装物、死者财产、不动产和遗忘物的占有 ,应依具体的事实支配关系来确定。     

认真对待法律——解读《法律的成长·法律科学的悖论》

法律的产生、法律的成长、法律的功能和法律的目的,这些术语看起来普遍抽象,高高在上,漠视现实,无法引起法律探索者的兴趣,但事实并非如此。正是这些普遍性和抽象性,指导法律思维,左右法官意志,在平衡产生动摇时决定疑难案件的结果。总体说来,每个判决提出的问题其实都涉及一种有关法律起源与目的的哲学,这一哲学尽管隐蔽,实际却是最终的裁决者。     

瑕疵仲裁协议效力的认定

瑕疵仲裁协议是当事人在争议发生之前或争议发生之后订立的仲裁意思表示明确、真实但内容存在些许缺陷的书面文件。一个仲裁协议是否瑕疵仲裁协议,取决于判定仲裁协议效力的法律。我国的仲裁立法对仲裁协议的有效要件规定的过于严苛,使许多当事人仲裁意思表示真实的仲裁协议被认定为瑕疵仲裁协议导致仲裁协议无效,当事人丧失了仲裁救济途径。我国的仲裁法亟待完善,亟待与国际社会接轨。我国应当以1985年联合国国际贸易法委员会《国际商事仲裁示范法》为蓝本制定我国的仲裁法律,使我国的仲裁法与各国法律保持一致,我国现在是贸易大国、海运大国,我国应该成为国际贸易争议仲裁中心和国际海事案件仲裁中心,这样才能与我国的贸易大国、海运大国地位相匹配。     

论刑法解释的基本原则

对刑法解释基本原则的研究,在方法论和存在论上必然遭遇到语言解释学上不可避免的部分和整体之间的循环问题。确立刑法解释的基本原则受几个关系的影响:哲学解释学、一般法律解释和刑法解释学的关系;刑法的基本原则和刑法解释的基本原则之间的关系;刑法的基本思想和刑法解释的基本原则之间的关系。“以政策为指导原则”、“整体性原则”、“明确具体原则”不是刑法解释的基本原则。我国刑法解释的基本原则有三个:合法性原则,它是刑法解释的形式规制;合理性原则,它是刑法解释的实质规制;合目的性原则,它是刑法解释原则的冲突之整合规则。     

我国刑法中应当设立“暴行罪”——以虐待儿童的刑法规制为中心

在我国许多虐待儿童的行为,由于没有造成轻伤以上的后果无法以故意伤害罪评价,由于加害被害双方不是家庭成员不能定为虐待罪,也无法以其他罪名有效规制,至多由公安机关处以15日的行政拘留,这样未充分体现对暴力行为的打击以及对人身的特别保护.为了惩罚和预防虐待儿童一类的暴行,为了严厉打击暴力犯罪,全面严密保护公民的人身权利,我们应借鉴日本、英美刑法的立法理念及法律规定,将暴行罪引入我国刑法,将以殴打或其他暴行侵犯他人身体的行为纳入刑法的评价视野,从而更有效地保护包括儿童在内的公民的人身安全.     

排污权制度论纲

排污权是权利人依法享有的对基于环境自净能力而产生的环境容量进行使用、收益的权利.作为一种资源物权,由于其具有客体无形性、占有弱化性、公私兼容性和相对的排他性,因此在民法法域内其归属于准物权的范畴.基于赋存载体、设立目的、权利功能、效力范围上的差异,排污权可被类型化为四种形态.就功能而言,排污权的确立为完善我国民法及环境法的权利体系,推进环境要素市场化配置及《京都议定书》的履行提供了重要的法理基础.     

中国犯罪构成体系不必重构

It becomes a tendency to introduce the German and Japanese theory in the structure of crime to restructure that of China. However, Chinese structure of crime is not that poor as criticized, while that of Germany and Japan applauded by reformist also has disadvantages, such as the confliction inside the system, the deviation of actuality and original intention and the only systematic notion, etc. The issues of Chinese structure of crime, e.g. the relationship of the constituents is not clear and the concept of crime deduced from the structure of crime is too simple, can be solved by carrying through the object-preferred step-up notion and setting up the concept of crime with various meanings. Thus, the current structure of crime does not have to be restructured. Li Hong, professor of criminal law, works at Law School of Tsinghua University. He got his M.A. and Ph.D, first at Wuhan University, China and then at Doshisha University, Japan. His primary research is focused on the elements of crime, corporate crime and Japanese criminal law and his main publications include Study of Omission, Study of Corporate Crime and Reflection on General Criminal Issues, etc.