刑事被害人的知情权探析

被害人的知情权是被害人行使其他诉讼权利的逻辑前提,是诉讼民主的重要体现,亦有助于实现社会正义。国际公约及其他国际性文件和法治发达国家都对公民的知情权及被害人的知情权都作了明确规定,有的国家甚至将其上升到宪法的高度。我国刑事被害人享有一定程度的知情权,但权利告知规则仍不完善,被害人对案件的进展、诉讼结果以及刑罚的执行情况缺乏知悉途径,知情权的实现缺乏保障机制。立法上应对其作相应完善。     

中国共产党的利益代表性和社会利益关系调节

中国共产党要调节好各种社会利益关系,必须以各种群体利益的共同发展为出发点,制定方针政策,着重调节经济利益,疏通利益表达渠道,扩大执政的群众基础。     

论社会中介组织的新一类经济法主体地位

非法学学科对社会中介组织的研究成果交集指向其社会性和中介性,它构成了经济法上社会中介组织的理论基础。法学视野中的社会中介组织处于社会公共经济管理关系中时,民法和行政法无法调整该社会关系。社会中介组织的本质与经济法的宗旨、性质、价值本位等高度契合,其因此具有了新一类经济法主体的唯一身份。经济法主体视角下的社会中介组织理论有利于解决专利权滥用、消费者隐私权保护、公益诉讼、市场经济信用体系的构建等难题。     

论警察的法律意识

公安工作提供的是一种公共产品 ,它不具有竞争性和排他性。警察的法律意识和法律素质问题 ,已成为制约公安工作的重要因素 ,也是人民群众反映强烈的主要问题。我们可以运用社会学、心理学和法学的相关知识 ,对警务人员的法律意识进行重点分析 ,以引起相关部门的注意 ,使公安工作更趋合理和完善     

Reforming Chinese arbitration law and practices in the global economy

In the last 50 years Chinese arbitration law and practices has made significant contributions to the international commercial arbitration and strides to manage the rapidly increasing caseload associated with a period of amazing growth in economic interactions between Chinese and non-Chinese parties. In the global economy there are rooms for further improvement. The paper proposed some ideas on reforming the Chinese arbitration law and practices on the arbitration system regarding the ad hoc arbitration, panel system and tribunal jurisdiction, interim measures of protection, as well as standards for the judicial review on the arbitral awards.     

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》修改暨中国仲裁协会章程起草研究工作座谈会综述

国务院法制办于2006年4月18~20日在厦门主持召开了《仲裁法》修改暨中国仲裁协会章程起草研究工作座谈会。出席会议的有国务院法制办领导以及全国十几家仲裁机构的主要负责人等。与会代表围绕此次会议的两个主要议题积极发言,献计献策,最终形成了一个面向全国仲裁机构征求意见的《仲裁法》修改草案,并且初步完成了中国仲裁协会章程的起草工作,为进一步征求各方意见并最终成立协会做好了准备。     

涉外劳动纠纷中竞业禁止协议准据法之研究——以微软与Google纠纷案为视角

竞业禁止协议的准据法确定问题,直接决定着涉外民商事关系主体应承担的具体权利、义务和责任,尤其是由于此类协议在一定程度上限制了雇员的择业自由,适用不当极有可能演变为雇主不正当竞争的工具,故此各国立法对其的有效性均采取审慎态度,并按照所奉行的公共政策对其进行法律调整。     

论阐明权的界限

规范阐明权的核心问题之一就是明确阐明权在民事诉讼中的适用范围,在我国阐明权的界限应当如下第一,对于大部分民商事案件,都应当适用阐明权;但是,对有关身份关系的诉讼、有关公益的诉讼、特别程序案件不适用阐明权。第二,阐明权适用的诉讼事项主要应是实体事项或者可以决定实体权利归属的程序事项。第三,阐明权适用于当事人,当事人的诉讼代理人,特殊情形下的案外人,以及有权启动再审程序的人。第四,阐明权的基准时通常应当是言词辩论终结时。     

To Wonderland Through the Looking-glass: Conceiving a Critical Legal Argument for Contractual Justice in the South African Law of Contract †

The aim of this paper is to identify the possible substructure (looking glass/es) of a critical legal argument for contractual justice (Wonderland) in the South African law of contract. South African contract law still fails, ten years after the constitutional transformation, to reflect the constitutional ideals of freedom, equality and human dignity in an acceptable manner. I argue that this disposition places a question mark over the legitimacy of contract law and marginalizes opportunities for the social change envisaged by the Constitution. The paper explores Duncan Kennedy’s Form and Substance-argument and indicates that the reluctance to accommodate these values may be attributable to the fact that the majority of role-players position themselves on the individualism/rules side of Kennedy’s continuum – a paradigm that perceives the law of contract as a body of positivistic rules to be applied neutrally and regardless of the social or socio-economic distortions its application may generate. In an attempt to move away from this traditional approach, the privileged paradigm is criticised. A typical CLS-approach is followed which employs sociology, psychological jurisprudence and game theory to criticise the law from outside the restrictive realms of law itself. Simultaneously, I attempt to illuminate the argument for a shift (step through the looking glass) to another paradigm. I conclude that our judiciary finds itself in a position similar to that of Plato’s prisoners in the cave and will not reach the point where they apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice. Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. †Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice.     

论民事起诉权

民事起诉权是当事人一项重要的诉讼权利,是公民的基本权利在民事诉讼领域的重要体现。它具有启动民事诉讼程序、维护当事人合法权益、制约法院审判权的滥用等多方面的功能。我国现行的一些制度诸如起诉和受理制度等对于民事起诉权的保障还存在许多不足,有待于进一步完善。