The Paternalistic Principle

In this paper, I critique one aspect of Simester and von Hirsch’s, Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs—their recognition of harm and offence principles, but failure to construct a paternalistic principle, despite their willingness to countenance some small measure of criminal paternalism. Construction of such a principle would have clarified the problems of as well as the limits to criminalising paternalism.     

论合同自由原则与合同正义原则的统一性

自由、公平是保障交易活动正常进行不可缺少的要素。合同法作为规范市场经济活动的法则必 须将合同自由与合同正义有机地统一起来,才能维护正常的市场交易活动。合同自由原则是维 持自由竞争的基础,合同正义原则是自由竞争的必要限制,只有将当事人的合意与上升为法律的 国家意志有机统一,体现法律效力,才能践行真正的合同自由。中国对两个原则统一的全面认识 体现在新制定的合同法上:既集中体现了合同自由的精神实质,又始终贯穿了合同正义的要旨。 但还应及时修正个别条款中不能科学体现两个原则的不足,才能有效促进市场经济交易的正常 发展。     

辨认原理、规则之解析与构建

辨认的原理和规则有着密切的关系。辨认的原理是辨认规则的指导和依据,而辨认规则是辨认原理的体现和具体化。辨认规则是以辨认原理为依据,通过具体的活动落实辨认原理过程的规则性总结。没有辨认原理,辨认规则就失去了理论基础;没有辨认规则,辨认原理也难以得到实现和验证。因此,二者密切关系不言而喻。以辨认原理为理念支撑,以辨认规则为技术指导,以异国异域辨认制度为参照,是构建中国辨认制度的重要路径。     

The Production Principle in Party Structure

The November Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, which discussed Comrade N. S. Khrushchev's report "Economic Development of the USSR and Party Guidance of the Economy," was an event of exceptional importance. Its work manifested with new force such Leninist characteristics of our Party as a creative approach to problems of the building of communism which are ripe for solution; the ability at each new stage to distinguish the main link in the chain; the ability to pose problems with revolutionary breadth, and to merge politics, economics, and organizing activities into a single whole. Having condemned the Stalin personality cult, our Party is working persistently to overcome its consequences. It has added to and developed the Leninist traditions. Lenin's standards for conducting Party affairs and his principles of leadership are being asserted more and more fully.     

国际法上的风险预防原则

风险预防原则已经成为国际和国内环境保护法律制度的一项重要的基本原则。该原则要求我们在进行任何的经济活动之前就对该活动可能会对自然环境和生态系统造成的影响进行风险预测,并相应采取针对性的措施,从而更好地保护自然环境和生态系统。但如何将该原则运用到危险废物越境转移领域,仍然有待我们进行理论上的探讨。应加强对危险废物越境转移中运用该原则等方面的探讨。     

The Limits of the Harm Principle

The harm principle, understood as the normative requirement that conduct should be criminalized only if it is harmful, has difficulty in dealing with those core cases of criminal wrongdoing that can occur without causing any direct harm. Advocates of the harm principle typically find it implausible to hold that these core cases should not be crimes and so usually seek out some indirect harm that can justify criminalizing the seemingly harmless conduct. But this strategy justifies criminalization of a wide range of conduct on the basis of the fear, worry, and anxiety it generates among those who are not the direct victims of the conduct, and thereby undermines the limiting role of the harm principle by permitting the very move it was meant to prevent: the criminalization of harmless conduct on the ground of others’ feelings about it. The best way to avoid this dilemma is to recognize that people have rights, operating independently of the harm principle, to be treated in certain ways just because they are persons. The existence of such rights provides a ground for both criminalizing conduct and limiting the scope of criminalization because these rights point both to conduct that people must be permitted to engage in (regardless of its harmful effects) and conduct that might well be criminalized (though it is not harmful). A complete account of criminal law will therefore require the harm principle to work together with an independent account of rights.     

浅析WTO框架内的风险预防原则——以《动植物卫生检疫措施协定》第5．7条为视角

作为国际环境法基本原则之一的风险预防原则,其精髓在于强调当有环境风险发生或发生之虞时,不应以缺乏科学确定性为由而限制必要措施的施行。在WTO框架内,风险预防原则主要体现在《SPS协定》第5．7条。实践中,第5．7条的适用需同时遵循程序及实质两方面的要件。从这些要件可以看出,《SPS协定》第5．7条不是单纯地反映了风险预防原则,而是对风险预防原则的具体化,其所规定的临时性措施是对风险预防原则具体适用的一项风险预防措施。WTO应以《SPS协定》第5．7条为基础,与国际环境法共同发展风险预防原则。这样既有利于贸易自由化对环境所造成的风险获得更有效的管理,又有利于WTO与国际环境法的协调。     

处分原则下的当事人诉讼行为

处分原则和辩论原则为民事诉讼的两大基石,而民事诉讼则是法院审判行为与当事人诉讼行为合力的结果,因此在处分原则的框架内对实体层面上的当事人诉讼行为进行研究,对于保障当事人处分权和规制其诉讼行为,并在此基础上更合理和科学地构筑整个民事诉讼制度无疑将具有十分重要的理论意义和现实意义。     

中国行政诉讼的平衡原则

<行政诉讼法>第1条规定"为保证人民法院正确、及时审理行政案件,保护公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益,维护和监督行政机关依法行使行政职权,根据宪法制定本法".本条既是<行政诉讼法>的立法目的,同时也是该法所确立的中国行政诉讼的一条基本原则--平衡原则.日前,最高人民法院针对行政审判因各地为应对国际金融危机而采取各种措施而引发的新情况、新问题,发布了<关于当前形势下做好行政审判工作的若干意见>(以下简称<意见>).该<意见>更以现代行政法的公平、公正与效率、效益相协调的原理为指导,进一步丰富和发展了<行政诉讼法>确立的平衡原则.     

论刑法平等原则的理论基础

平等是指人们相互间权利获得与义务履行的相同性 ,它应是一种相对平等、地位平等。刑法平等应是权利意义上的人人平等 ,它以形式平等为原则 ,反对结果平等 ,但同时也应包括实质平等的内容。就目前而言 ,可接受的实质平等只能是给弱者优待 ,而不能给强者特权。上述意义的刑法平等原则 ,应在基本原则中居于最高地位 ,应担负起罪刑法定、罪刑均衡无能为力的任务     

The Principle of Universalizability and its Semiosis

The article illustrates the universal nature of lawby phenomenologically considering some legalcategories: legal subject, legal interpretation, legalmeaning, and third person. The starting-point is theuniversalizing nature of some fundamental rules ofpractical discourse, respectively of legal reasoning.Like universalizability, this is a process that can besemiotically explained. Semiosis itself presupposesmediation; besides, it posits that the principle ofuniversalizability has no direct effect. It usesmediators. The instance of `third' as such amediator is clarified in various aspects and levels.This instance refers to impersonality. The positionalcharacteristic of semiosis excludes any participationof subjectiveness. This universalizability is backedup both by the reference itself and by its referenceto law. Relation to law is a relation of likeness. Asa relation it is a predication, i.e. universal. Itrefers to the normative quality of law, which isuniversal, too. Substantially, the co-relations oflikeness are explained like a shifting of legalmeaning from one position of semiosis to another. Themeaning is universal unlike the sense. Through itsmediation the principle of universalizability rulesover the semantic continuity of law, including itsknowledge. Beginning with a universal, through theplay of semiosis, the subject can perceive theuniverse of law.     

由“主动”变“被动”析我国驰名商标认定新原则

2003年4月17日,国家工商行政管理总局发布了《驰名商标认定和保护规定》(以下简称《规定》)(2003年6月1日开始实行),修改了原来的“主动保护,批量认定”的方式,转而采取“被动保护、个案认定”的国际通行惯例。我国为什么要将刚刚实行7年的工商行政管理机关主动认定方式改为被动认定方式?采用被动保护有什么意义?我国目前的现实情况,被动保护是否有其弊端?这些是本文要探讨的问题。一、我国更改驰名商标认定原则是多种因素促成的结果我国原有的驰名商标认定方式——“主动认定为主,被动认定为辅”,源于1996年8月14日国家工商行政管理总局发…     

现代刑事诉讼法的“帝王"原则:程序法定原则重述

程序法定原则作为刑事诉讼法的首位原则、“帝王”原则,构成了现代程序法的基石, 其地位如同罪刑法定原则之于刑法典。从内容上分析,程序法定原则包括了形式(程序合法性)和实质(程序正当性)两项要件,由此产生了形式意义上的程序法定原则和实质意义上的程序法定原则。作为现代刑事诉讼程序的一种通论性和一般性原则,程序法定原则对于整个刑事诉讼程序具有统摄性,在刑事诉讼各个阶段都存在着程序法定的具细原则。我国刑事诉讼制度在立法和司法实践中存在的种种问题最后几乎都可以归结为“程序法定”原则的不彰、程序法定价值的不显。基于此,刑事诉讼法典的制定和运行,贯彻程序法定原则是当务之急。     

The Organized Irresponsibility Principle and Risk Arbitrage

In an age of accelerating wealth at the very top and accelerating risks at the bottom, there is a clear disjunction between the flow of social benefits and social damages produced by different actors and their share of these respective benefits and damages. Yet, the specific processes that generate the dualization of tracks of accumulation of rewards or accumulation of risks and precarity are still up for debate. In tackling this dual process in a way that is attuned to the critical contribution of contemporary forms of the law to this uneven accumulation of wealth and of risks, this paper focuses on organized irresponsibility—where individuals can cumulatively contribute to risks, but avoid individual culpability—and how relations of organized irresponsibility provide extensive opportunities for risk arbitrage. Risk arbitrage is correspondingly a process where actors, whether it be individuals or larger organizations, can produce social risk, appropriate benefit from these risks, and disproportionately avoid the consequences of the risks so as to benefit from the overall “cycle of reward and risk”—even if society as a whole is worse off. The paper identifies organized irresponsibility as fundamentally undergirded by mismatches between existing configurations of law and the existing complexity of the processes of the production of social goods and risks. This paper proceeds to show how gaps in the law enable the organized irresponsibility principle—that given a level of risk production, the greater the number of actors involved and the greater complexity between causes and the risk’s impacts, the less overall culpability that tends to be assigned. It then shows how the organized irresponsibility principle enables relationships of risk arbitrage that intensify contemporary risk and inequality.     

无因性原则之考古

对于无因性理论,应该以一种历史实证主义的态度去了解其发生和转型。罗马法上的抽象性原则在法律构成和效果方面与现代无因行为大致相近,但主要和具有宗教意义的形式主义密切相关。德国法上的无因性原则原本是法学家理论分析之抽象思维的结果,在最初的意义上,它并非基于功能论或目的论等法政策上的考虑而被创设,而是对请求给付之诉(不当得利制度之罗马法上的渊源)进行解释的产物。因此,无论是否定还是支持无因性理论,都不能以唯心主义的立场,浪漫地从功能主义的角度去理解其本初的意义。     

论资本多数决原则——对股东大会决议规则的反思

资本多数决原则是股份有限公司议事和决策的基本规则。资本多数决既是股东民主的要求,也是公司效率的需要。在公司运作过程中,资本多数决与少数股东保护之间有内在的冲突,成为控制股东损害少数股东利益的诱因。从制度设计上约束控制股东,维护少数股东与控制股东利益的平衡,是公平、正义等法的基本价值的体现。