亚太地区安全结构转型与东盟的角色

冷战结束后,亚太地区的安全结构经历了巨大的变化,特别是当前中关两国在亚太地区发生"权力分享"乃至"权力转移"之际,亚太地区安全结构的调整尤为显著。一方面,以美国为枢轴的"同盟型"结构经历了由"轮辐体系"向"网络化"的转型,形成了新的同盟、准同盟和潜在同盟的层次化布局;另一方面,以中俄为代表的新兴经济体在强化原有的"协作型"安全架构的同时,又通过"一带一路""欧亚联盟"等战略性倡议重塑亚太乃至整个欧亚大陆的地缘战略态势。作为亚太地区安全结构中的"第三股力量",东盟通过对一系列多边安全机制的建设,既为两种大国主导的安全架构提供了对话平台,也已成为实现未来亚太地区整体性安全架构的可行性路径之一。与此同时,由于大国战略竞争的加剧,逐渐侵蚀了东盟聚合力、中立性乃至在整体性安全架构中的"中心地位"。未来亚太地区安全架构的解构和重构需要中关找到新的战略共识,并对东盟的中心地位进行"再确认"。     

从我国《合伙企业法》的修订谈商法的原则

商法原则在商事立法和商事司法中都有重要的意义,但是,目前学术界对商法原则的界定却存在相当大的分歧,从“二原则说”到“五原则说”,学者们的见解各不相同。可以借我国《合伙企业法》修订的契机,从商法价值的角度对商法的原则进行法律重塑。     

The government behind insurance governance: Lessons for ransomware

The insurance as governance literature focuses on the ability of private enterprises to collectively regulate, pool, and distribute risks. This paper analyzes how governments support insurance markets to maintain insurability and limit risks to society. We propose a new conceptual framework grouping government interventions into three dimensions: regulation of risky activity, public investment in risk reduction, and co-insurance. We apply this framework to six case studies, describing insurance markets' reliance on public support in more analytically precise terms. We analyze how mature insurance markets overcame insurability challenges akin to those currently presented by extortive cybercrime. Private governance struggled when markets grew too big for informal coordination or when (tail) risks escalated. Government interventions vary widely. Some governments prioritize supporting economic activity while others concentrate on containing risks. Governments also choose between risk reduction and ex post socialization of losses. We apply these insights to the market for ransomware insurance, discussing the merits and potential hazards of current proposals for government intervention.     

Like bringing a knife to a gunfight: Why IRC Section 2036 is not the right weapon to combat abusive family limited partnerships

Family Limited Partnerships (“FLPs”), which were once a great estate planning technique, have now become victim to Section 2036 assertions made by the IRS. Over the years, the IRS has struggled to find a means to combat abusive FLPs until the courts began to embrace Section 2036 as a weapon for them to use. Different courts, however, have maintained different rules and have now subjected both abusive and non-abusive FLPs to inclusion of their assets into their gross estates. This has shed light onto the main issue, that is, that Section 2036 is not the appropriate tool to combat abusive FLPs.