Complementarity, Amnesties and Alternative Forms of Justice: Some Interpretative Guidelines for the International Criminal Court

The question to what extent amnesties and pardons may bar criminalinvestigations or prosecutions under the Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court (the Statute) has been left unresolved by theRome process. This essay seeks to develop some general guidelinesthat may help the Court to address this problem, should it arisein a specific case. It suggests four basic principles to dealwith the issue of amnesties and pardons: (i) the Court has interpretativeautonomy to decide whether an amnesty or a pardon is permissibleunder the Statute; (ii) exemptions from criminal responsibilityfor the core crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court byamnesties or pardons should generally be considered incompatiblewith the Statute; (iii) prosecution by states and by the Courtmay be limited to the most serious crimes and the most responsibleperpetrators (targeted prosecution); (iv) amnesties or pardonsshould, if it all, only be permitted in exceptional cases, namelywhere they are conditional and accompanied by alternative formsof justice.     

析对具有强制执行效力的公证债权文书提起诉讼人民法院是否受理

2008年12月8日，最高人民法院审判委员会第1457次会议通过了《最高人民法院关于当事人对具有强制执行效力的公证债权文书的内容有争议提起诉讼人民法院是否受理问题的批复》（以下简称《批复》），12月26日最高人民法院以法释[2008]17号文正式发布了《批复》，该《批复》于发布之日起施行。《批复》的发布施行明确了有关具有强制执行效力的公证债权文书是否具有可诉性的法律适用问题，解决了长期以来公证界和司法界争论的一个实务和理论问题。     

Safe harbor provisions of Chinese law: How clear are search engines from liability?

It seemed well-settled that Chinese law provided owners of search engines with safe harbor against unreasonable interference from copyright holders. But the judgment of IFPI v. Yahoo! shook this belief. This controversial judgment is related to the rather convoluted applicable legal rules, with joint infringement rules interweaved with the safe harbor provisions. To fully expose the scope of search engine provider's liability and the legal issues of the Yahoo! China ruling in particular, this paper examines the Chinese provisions for joint infringement and liability for search engines, discusses all the Chinese “safe harbor” provisions, those in the Regulation RCIN, the Judiciary Interpretation for Digital Copyright and the Administrative Measures for Digital Copyright. Following this discussion, suggested errors in legal application in the Yahoo! China case are analyzed and a suggested right approach is argued.     

最高人民法院《关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定》的说明

最高人民法院法释[2005]13号《关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定》已经最高人民法院审判委员会第1368次会议讨论通过,并将于2006年1月1日起施行。现将该司法解释的有关情况作如下说明:一、起草理由、背景和过程介绍自1995年以来,各类信用证纠纷案件不断诉至人民法院,并呈逐年增多的趋势。截止2004年底,最高人民法院审理的信用证纠纷二审案件已达百余件;还有相当一部分高级人民法院就有关信用证纠纷案件反映出来的法律问题向最高人民法院请示;银监会、各商业银行就下级人民法院不当冻结信用证项下款项的问题向最高人民法院紧急反映要求…     

Play by the Rules: why States Should Adopt Uniform Court Rules for Forensic Psychologists in Child Custody Evaluations

It is not uncommon for children to fall victim to the stress and tension of a contentious custody dispute. If a party seeks a mental health evaluation and the opposing party challenges the results, the child then endures a series of evaluations until a valid report is produced. The court will often remedy this situation by appointing a neutral forensic psychologist to perform the evaluation independent from a previous party‐hired forensic psychologist. 1 This Note proposes that the court instead appoint the forensic psychologist first to conduct an evaluation and draft a report. Only at the judge's discretion may the parties hire a private forensic psychologist to challenge the report. Additionally, states should codify court rules that enumerate standards for forensic psychologists in child custody evaluations. These rules should set forth criteria that shall be required and highlighted throughout each mental health evaluator's report, allowing judges to compare and contrast each evaluation more effectively. This legislation will not only reduce the child's exposure to excessive testing, but will also provide a more efficient way of arriving at a just result.     

最高人民法院关于涉外民事或商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定

(二○○六年七月十七日最高人民法院审判委员会一千三百九十四次会议通过)法释[2006]5号最高人民法院公告《最高人民法院关于涉外民事或商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定》已于2006年7月17日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1394次会议通过,现予公布,自2006年8月22日起施行。二○○六年八月十日为规范涉外民事或商事案件司法文书送达,根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(以下简称民事诉讼法)的规定,结合审判实践,制定本规定。第一条人民法院审理涉外民事或商事案件时,向在中华人民共和国领域内没有住所的受送达人送达司法文书,适用本规定。第二条…     

A profile of the Italian state Audit Court: An agent in search of a resolute principal

The Italian Court of Accounts has a long and well documented history, but its functions are limited and not clearly revealed from analysis of the historical record. However, the institutional background of the Italian case is vital for understanding the notion that an agent due to the function he has been assigned, is in search of his principal. This article offers historical and institutional documentation on which a theoretical analysis can be built.     

Guidelines for Collecting and Recording the Race and Ethnicity of Juveniles in Conjunction with Juvenile Delinquency Disposition Reporting to the Juvenile Court Judges' Commission

One of the most compelling reasons for accurate racial coding of juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system is to ensure that all youth are treated fairly, regardless of race or ethnicity. Pennsylvania juvenile courts and probation departments now have instructions and guidelines for collecting and recording race and ethnicity in compliance with Federal standards. These guidelines can be easily adopted by other states and jurisdictions.     

论《人民法院统一证据规定》及大陆法和普通法的融合

中国属于大陆法系，在法官职权、法院地位和对待先例的态度上都与大陆法法系的基本特征一致，而这些特征又是大陆法系同英美法系的区分点，在当今大陆法和英美法互相融合的潮流下，我国的《人民法院统一证据规定》（建议稿）正是融合的标志，这部《统一规定》在证据规定、民事和刑事诉讼程序中都与《美国联邦证据规则》存在很多共同之处，与德国、日本等国家仅仅就审判程序的改革相比，《人民法院同一证据规定》在证据规定方面迈出了更大的一步。本文作者认为，在这个融合的过程中。相同的规定在不同的环境下将演化出另样的甚至是出人意料的结果，但是《统一规定》对“公正和效率”这一价值目标的实现是毫无置疑的。此外，《统一规定》在试用阶段的考察和改良无疑将增强融合后的可行性。     

Lowering the Bar: Privileged Court Filings as Substitutes for Press Releases in the Court of Public Opinion

In the civil lawsuit against Kobe Bryant for sexual assault, the judge admonished lawyers for engaging in “public relations litigation”—the use of pleadings to attract media attention and try cases in the court of public opinion. This article examines the legal ramifications of such practices and the doctrines of law that encourage some lawyers and litigants to use pleadings as a form of press release. These include the law of republication and the fair report and judicial privileges as well as the power of judges to gag trial participants. The article concludes that courts have adequate tools to control such practices, and lawyers and public relations professionals can responsibly use court documents to communicate with the public, so long as they do not abuse the judicial process.     

Friends of the Court: The Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey

During the past two decades, scholars have noted a global expansion of judicial power and court‐led rights revolutions. Far from leading a rights‐revolution, the Constitutional Court of Turkey became renowned for its restrictive take on civil liberties during this period. Why are some high courts more activist than others in protecting and expanding civil rights and liberties? I argue that judicial power and judicial independence offer incomplete explanations of judicial activism on questions of rights. Even powerful courts are activist only selectively, using their clout to protect some groups while suppressing the demands of others. Building on perspectives on legal mobilization and judicial entrenchment, I argue that the sociopolitical alliances in which high courts and judiciaries participate explain the selective nature of their activism. The initial parameters of these alliances are set during critical junctures when formerly dominant coalitions are displaced and new institutions entrench new alliances. Such alliances are not static, however, and struggles within alliances can transform high courts' orientations on rights questions.