联邦咨询委员会法

<正>第1节短标题本法可引作“联邦咨询委员会法”。第2节问题与立法目的(A)国会发现,已有诸多如委员会、专员、理事会之类的团体被设立,以为联邦政府的行政部门中的官员和机关提供建议,并已成为对联邦政府提供专家建议、想法和多元观点的有用的和有益的方式。     

Educational Research and the Protection of Human Subjects

Educational research is increasingly subject to legal restrictions designed for the protection of human subjects of research. In this article the author discusses legal restrictions–both in the courts and under HEW regulations–on educational research, comparing these restrictions with those on biomedical research. He finds that although educational research in particular instances may give rise to suits for damages for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of psychological distress, the legal issues relating to educational research will most often be resolved in proceedings before institutional review boards charged by HEW with the responsibility for passing upon proposals to conduct research on human subjects. He argues that the interests protected in proceedings before institutional review boards are not limited to those that have received judicial recognition in suits for damages. The author finds that the requirement that the informed consent of subjects be obtained presents difficult issues for educational research. He notes in particular the problems presented by research proposals that as an element of the research design contemplate the observation of subjects without their knowledge and the use of children as research subjects.     

Protection against Unfair Contracts: An Economic Analysis of European Regulation

After considering the possible outcomes that may result from the interaction between potential contract parties, this paper discusses potential causes of inefficiency and investigates how the law affects conditions that would give rise to inefficiency. The analysis is focussed on the European regulation of standard form contracts. This regulation implies that unfair terms in standard form contracts are unenforceable in Member States of the European Community, and can be interpreted as a measure to curtail the adverse selection problem that originates in the fact that contract parties may use standard form contracts. This paper investigates the welfare implication of this protection against unfair contracts.     

人权保障视野下的行刑权的规制问题

作为公权性质的行刑权与罪犯的人权具有冲突的一面,行刑权与罪犯人权并非绝对对立的关系。保障受刑人的人权仅仅靠人道主义思想是远远不够的,而是应当通过规制行刑权来保障人权。因此,一方面应当整合行刑权的行使主体;另一方面应当将行刑权进行司法审查。     

中国式股权众筹:法律规制与投资者保护

投资者是资本市场的基础,只有以投资者保护为中心,完善对股权众筹融资模式的法律规制,才能促进股权众筹市场的健康、有序和快速发展。然而,股权众筹在我国现行法律框架下不仅没有作为法律基础的制度规范,而且还与《证券法》等法律规定存在一定冲突,这导致现实中股权众筹只能以各种形式的外壳规避法律限制而曲折发展,投资者在交易中面临着信息不对称、合同欺诈、项目估值过高、平台"资金池"、缺乏投后管理等诸多风险。我国在发展股权众筹的过程中,可以参考美国JOBS法案,通过修改《证券法》的方式,将股权众筹纳入其中进行监管,放开对投资者人数的限制,并对广告、公开劝诱和变相公开募资行为进行规制,同时应当建立强制性的信息披露制度,完善众筹平台管理及交易制度,从而有效实现对股权众筹的法律规制和对投资者利益的保护。     

区域性人权保护制度对全球性国际人权保护的启示

尽管目前已存在为数不少的国际人权公约,国际社会成员也越来越多地加入这些公约,但全球范围内国际人权保护的效果并不明显。相比而言,区域性人权保护制度更具可行性。区域性人权保护制度在人权保护中取得了显著成绩,对全球性国际人权保护有重大启迪作用。     

民事裁判中的人权保障

人权具有普世价值,其不仅存在于政治国家,对市民社会同样具有统帅作用。廓清人权与民事权利的关系是实现民事裁判中人权保障的前提。纯粹国家取向的人权、国家私人二元取向的人权与民事权利的关系决定了这两种人权不存在在民事裁判中的适用问题,可拓展性国家取向的人权则可以通过间接介入的方式在民事裁判中发挥作用。其作用主要体现在:在民事裁判中作为评价民事行为的界限、认定民事责任的界限(包括构成阻却违法性的考量要件、构成认定主观过错的考量要件)、法律适用中解释与价值填补的功能发挥。     

人权保障视野中讯问方法的合法运用

讯问犯罪嫌疑人作为收集证据的重要途径在其方法上受到人权保障原则的制约,讯问方法的运用因此不得不面临人权保障与发现案件事实真相的目标冲突。讯问合法性的实质标准在于保证犯罪嫌疑人供述的自愿性,但纯粹的、彻底的自愿供述不可能是讯问合法性的绝对标准。为兼顾人权保障与侦查效率,我们既要确立任何人不被强迫自证其罪的原则,也要鼓励犯罪嫌疑人如实供述,并允许运用可能对供述自愿性构成轻微损害的讯问方法。     

An Update on the New Federal Expert Discovery Rule: The Expert's Perspective

In December 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (FRCP 26) was amended to protect certain communications between a litigating counsel and its experts from discovery. The rule protects communications and draft expert reports and lays out new disclosure requirements for the so-called “treating physician” expert. Attorneys and experts who first read the rule commonly agreed that the rule would make expert discovery more streamlined and cost-effective while preserving an opposing party's right to obtain facts and data that were considered by the expert in formulating its opinion. However, many commentators on the amended FRCP 26 warned practitioners not to fully embrace the literal meaning of the rule until it was field tested by litigating attorneys and the courts had the opportunity to interpret a number of loosely defined terms during the course of resolving federal discovery disputes. Now, almost a year after the rule's first official publication, several courts have interpreted the key terms that appear in the rule and have expressed their interpretations in written opinions. The judicial holdings of these cases cover different aspects of the rule, and it is still too early to determine how the majority of federal courts will ultimately interpret it. However, a review of current case law indicates that the courts have, thus far, taken a practical and literal view of the amended rule and have not expanded or limited its scope beyond what was generally believed to be the intent of the rule. As a result, practitioners are still hopeful that the rule will make working with an expert more efficient and less cumbersome, to the benefit of experts, attorneys, and ultimately their clients.