苏联的法律文化观点

<正> "法律文化"的概念在苏联已经讨论了大约二十五年。由于苏联法律研究学会以政治学的研究为中心,又由于"法律文化"概念符合马克思主义历史前进性的观点,因此,与西方相比,这一概念在苏联更多地受到学术界的注意。尽管苏联学者讨论这方面问题的文章总是受到西方学者的批评,但苏联的法律文化观点依然与西方的观点具有某些相似之处。苏联学者中最早讨论法律文化的是E.A.罗卡     

对《中华人民共和国法律汇编:1979—1986》的反思

<正> 在1987年8月24日的《北京周报》上,我第一次谈到的有关中国立法文选的一个短评。几个月后,在中国首都,我起初拟买两卷中国法律汇编。遗憾的是,在我所光顾的书店里,所有能买到的只有英译的刑法和刑事诉讼法,以及若干有关国家外资经济之立法的译本。据悉,我所要买的那两个版本,很快便销售一空。只是到了后来,通过一位在人大常委会秘书处工作的好心年青人,我才终于搞到那套书。这个两卷本的法律汇编共有约800页,外国人对之有兴趣是可以理解的。它提供了120多个当今中国有效的法规英译名。这个版本是"法制委员会     

Book reviews

Transborder Data Flows (Proceedings of an OECD Conference) Edited by Hans‐Peter Gassmann North Holland (Elsevier Science Publishers) 1985, US$74.00

Plastic and Electronic Money: New Payment Systems and Their Implications Patrick Frazer Woodhead Faulkner Limited 1985 £35

A User's Guide To Computer Contracting: Forms, Techniques and Strategies Davis, Allen, Bowman and Armstrong Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1985, $75

Legal Protection of Computer Programs and Data C. Millard Sweet & Maxwell/Stevens 1985, £24

Piracy of Phonograms Gillian Davies ESC Publishing Ltd. 1986. 2nd edition. £17.95.

Biotechnology and Patent Protection—An International Review F. K. Beier, R. S. Crespi and J. Straus O.E.C.D. 1985, £5

Protecting Privacy in Two‐Way Electronic Services David H. Flaherty Mansell Publishing Company 1985, £23.50

High‐Tech Espionage Jay Tuck Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd 1980, £10.95     

论犯罪现象的发生和变化的依赖关系

<正> 一、犯罪的因果关系问题在犯罪学中研究犯罪现象问题时,可以看到诸如"成因"、"原因"、"动机"、"根源"、"滋生情况"或者更普遍的"病源"、"犯罪发生因素"这样一些概念被作为相同意义概念使用的情况。要整顿好达类术语是相当困难的,因为在这     

Order in the Steinhaus case

In April 1986, one-month-old Lance Tyler Steinhaus sustained serious injuries, attributed to abuse by his father, that left him comatose. His mother and his physicians agreed that he should not be treated aggressively. The Redwood County (Minnesota) Welfare Department obtained a temporary order restraining withdrawal of Lance's antibiotic therapy. Lance's mother and Dr. David Steinhorn, a pediatrician, appealed to the County Court to dissolve the temporary injunction. Judge George I. Harrelson in this decision denied their request on the grounds that both state and federal law establish that infants with life-threatening conditions have a right to medically-indicated treatment and that Lance Steinhaus had such a right because he was in a "vegetative state" rather than technically "comatose." [Editor's note: After conducting another hearing on Lance's neurological status, the court ruled on 18 October that Lance was irreversibly comatose and ordered only "comfort care."]