Fundamental principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights and the applications

Legal principle, which underlies the value of the legal system, is supposed to be the origin and basis of concrete legal rules. It has also resulted from abstracting and summarizing the value and spirit of these legal rules. In light of the universality and hierarchy of legal principle, the principles of the international protection system of intellectual property rights (IPR) can be divided into the following two types: one is the fundamental principles applied to the what, why and how a legal system shall be constructed, such as principles of sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit, joint development, and international cooperation, which also can be expressed as the principles of sovereignty, international coordination and cooperation, fairness and justice. The other type includes those existing in the legal system and capable of being applied directly, such as the principle of national treatment, principle of minimum standard, principle of independence (for industrial property right), principle of independent protection (for copyright), principle of compulsory implementing patent (for patent right) and doctrine of priority (for industrial property right), etc. In my opinion, the principles of the international protection system of IPR shall follow the latter model, indicating that they shall be provided and written in the international conventions on the grounds that they can be applied directly, and that they can be universally applied to the whole international protection system of IPR instead of exclusive application to one certain system. Hereupon, the author believes that principles concerning the international protection system of IPR should include the principles of national treatment, minimum protection standard and public interest.     

论公司债权人对未出资股东及利害关系人的求偿权

公司债权人有权要求未出资股东承担补充赔偿责任的请求权,在公司法改采认缴资本制后,其重要性日益凸显。这种求偿权只有当公司已经丧失偿付能力且股东未履行出资义务时,才得以触发。它的实现有赖于公司债权人拥有知情权和举证责任的合理分配。未出资股东对公司债权人承担的是法定保证责任,司法解释将其设定为一次性责任存在着疏漏;未出资股东的利害关系人承担的则是以资本充实责任为基础的连带责任,此种责任在我国立法上既失之过窄,又失之过严。公司债权人的补充赔偿请求权具有比较优势,待时机成熟应将其上升为公司法层面的制度。     

线形结构基础上之双三角结构:对我国刑事诉讼结构之再认识

我国当前刑事诉讼结构是以线形结构为基础,并由庭审前阶段以检察裁判权为中心的前三角结构以及庭审阶段以法院审判权为中心的后三角结构所构成,这种结构存在一些弊端。改革的思路应当是,变线形结构为基础为庭审阶段三角结构为基础,确立庭审中心论并继续加强审判职能作用,同时强化检察机关对侦、辩双方诉讼行为的监督。     

略论虚假自认的效力

从自认的效力基础来分析虚假自认效力,界定辩论主义地位,基于追求真实对辩论主义进行修正,在一定限度范围内确定真实义务,才能正确认定虚假自认的效力。     

南海安全区域间治理模式探析

实现南海区域安全与和平、稳定一直以来是中国和东盟国家就南海局势展开对话与合作的重要议题之一。然而,现实中的南海安全局势却一再紧张,这表明南海区域安全制度性安排与安全秩序理念和现有变化、发展迅速的南海安全形势已经出现了不同步、不协调的状况。在过往长期的南海安全区域间治理实践中,东盟和中国作为南海周边最具影响力的国家间集团和最重要的区域大国,以不同的方式,就南海安全的区域间治理展开了对话与合作,并形成了各自富有特色的治理模式,"东盟模式"和"中国模式"。这两种模式从不同层次和多个渠道就南海区域安全治理进行了对话与合作,并在南海安全区域间治理方面发挥了一定的效用。然而,目前南海安全体系呈现出来的脆弱性和南海区域安全现况却一再揭示,中国和东盟在南海安全区域间治理进程中还面临着不少现实的困境。为克服这些困境,更好地实现南海安全的区域间治理,中国和东盟应形成合力,为南海安全的区域间治理重塑一个相吻合的制度规范,共同构建一个相匹配的角色、身份与创造一个具有建设性意义的内外治理环境。     

《民法典》视野下统一动产和权利担保登记制度的构造

在登记对抗主义之下,动产和权利担保登记的功能不在于创设一个新的权利,而在于为与担保人进行交易的第三人提供信息以及为确定竞存权利之间的优先顺位提供基础。如此,动产和权利担保登记系统应以声明登记制为基础而构建。《民法典》就动产和权利担保物权的功能主义立法方法为统一动产和权利担保登记制度提供了法律上的前提。在维持特殊动产、权利担保登记系统的前提下,统合没有所有权登记的标的物上的担保登记系统,并建立两大登记系统之间的电子链接。统一的动产和权利担保登记系统应是基于互联网的完全电子化的登记系统,其编制采取人的编成主义,并辅之以物的编成主义,涵盖所有在功能上起担保作用的交易类型。担保权人可以自主在线完成登记和查询,但为防止欺诈登记和虚假登记,担保人享有受领登记通知、请求注销或修正登记的权利,担保权人负有注销登记的义务。     

“允诺禁反言”原则论

“允诺禁反言”原则是作为传统的对价理论的对立面而产生的英美合同法概念。它于１９世纪末形成,在２０世纪得到充分发展。其适用须具备四项条件：有允诺存在、受诺人对允诺发生依赖、这种依赖为允诺人有理由预见、受诺人因依赖遭受了损失。它的适用范围包括从合同谈判到合同履行完毕的全过程。该原则因倡导公平正义和注重法律与现实的联系,对我国合同法的完善具有重要的借鉴作用     

非法利用信息网络罪的适用疑难与教义学表述

生效案件已经暴露了非法利用信息网络罪的罪质不明、追诉标准阙如、司法竞合处置有失妥当、积极适用的司法导向淡薄等问题。基于“利用信息网络”的行为特质,应明确《刑法》第287条之一的网络独立预备犯之立法旨趣,是一般性罪名,起基础性的规制功能,取代《刑法》第287条发挥司法兜底之用。不宜限制解释“其他、等‘违法犯罪’（信息、活动）”,扩张解释更符合第287条之一法定的相对有限的一般性规制功能。“同时构成其他犯罪的,依照处罚较重的规定定罪处罚”是限制刑罚处罚的提示性规定,本罪在实践中与关联犯罪的实质竞合概率应极低。应确认信息网络安全管理秩序的具体法益内容,固化其释法机能。应明确“情节严重”的具体追诉情形,注重通过案例指导制度提供持续性的司法供给。     

民国刑事诉讼法上的微罪不起诉制度

20世纪20年代,起诉便宜主义逐渐在大陆法系国家法律中得到确认,也很快被民国立法者所接受。在民国刑事诉讼法上,微罪不起诉制度是起诉便宜主义的集中体现,这项制度于1928年《刑事诉讼法》中首次得到确立,此后历经多次修改,在检察官作出微罪不起诉处分的考量因素和具体程序等方面得到了完善,但其适用范围则一直比较有限。在实践层面,微罪不起诉在民国时期的适用率始终偏低,因此很难充分实现其应有的价值。     

Introducing the Open Clause to improve copyright flexibility in cyberspace? Analysis and commentary on the proposed “two-step test” in the Third Amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC,in comparison with the EU and the US

The so called “three-step test”, that the limitations and exceptions of copyright shall be allowed in certain special cases, provided that they do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author, grants copyright flexibilities to balance the interests of all stakeholders, especially within the European system of circumscribed limitations and exceptions. This is essential for the domain of computer law, confronted by rapid and unpredictable global technological developments, and is, thus, enshrined in the most important international intellectual property (IP) treaties. Through the proposed third amendment to the Copyright Law of the PRC, the legislature intends to adopt this test while also introducing an open-ended list of limitations and exceptions that constitutes a China-specific “two-step test.” This contravenes prima facie the thesis endorsed by the WTO Panel in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act in 2000. In contrast, court decisions in China frequently apply the fair use doctrine of US copyright law, neglecting to consider its peculiar context of the US common law tradition and, thus, unduly expanding the Chinese courts' discretionary power.This paper summarizes the case law in China and takes a comparative approach to address the divergence between the judicial application of cyber copyright law and the existing legislation. It suggests revising the proposed Article 43 of the Copyright Law of the PRC to capture the due interpretation of the three-step test, thereby finessing the delineation between rights protection and free use with the compensation of remuneration under the principle of proportionality. It argues that transplanting the US fair use doctrine into Chinese copyright law is feasible, but with the preconditions of endeavouring to strengthen judicial reform to integrate the IP adjudication systems, enhancing the coherence and efficiency of copyright enforcement, and facilitating consistent dialogues between scholars, practitioners, and lawmakers.