司法之所以为司法的组织结构依据——论中国法院改革的核心问题之所在

司法之所以为司法,在于其功能不同于立法和行政,更在于它有一种不同于立法和行政的组织结构来保障。组织结构决定了组织中人的行为的基本指向及其沟通和互动方式。中国法院以等级结构为主的组织结构,造成了所有进入法院的人的行为表现为以以垂直指向、纵向沟通和服从型互动为主;在审理阶段所有参与人的交流不积极,也不深入;判决权可能在法院内部被处于各等级结构的法官分享,也可能在法院以外被瓜分;还表现为"审"与"判"分离,判决书缺乏说理性,审判缺乏公开性、公正性和权威性等方面。中国法院改革的核心问题,就是将这种以等级结构为主的组织结构变为以同等结构为主,将法院内可与审判分离的等级结构因素从法院中分离出来,进行更加集中化、行政化和等级化的管理。     

无正本提单交付货物的中英法律解读

无正本提单交付货物一直是困扰国际海上货物运输的主要问题之一。应该说,自从提单这一运输单证诞生并开始肩负作为交付货物凭证的功能时起,无单放货就伴随其产生了。从承运人的角度来说,最关心的莫过于如何认定无单放货的形式和性质以及因承担无单放货而产生的责任;从正本提单持有人的角度来说,在承运人无单放货的情况下如何行使索赔权则是其关注的核心。为了解决中国海事司法审判实践中出现的有关无正本提单交付货物纠纷的法律适用方面的问题,最高人民法院在2009年3月5日出台了《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》,由于在起草过程中大量借鉴了国外海事审判经验,而英国又是海事审判最先进的国家之一,积累了大量有关无单放货的判例,因此有必要通过这些案例来对该规定的主要内容进行解读,以便对相关内容进行更好的理解和把握。     

From ‘Doctor Knows Best’ to Dignity: Placing Adults Who Lack Capacity at the Centre of Decisions About Their Medical Treatment

In 1989, the House of Lords first derived a ‘best interests’ test for the medical treatment of adults who lack capacity from the doctrine of necessity and, now codified, the test continues to apply today. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out a non‐exhaustive checklist of relevant considerations, but it gives no particular priority to the patient's wishes. There is also no formal expectation that the patient will participate directly in any court proceedings in which her best interests are to be determined. This article will consider the advantages and disadvantages of providing additional guidance to decision‐makers in order to help them navigate both taking seriously the wishes of people who lack capacity and, at the same time, not abandoning patients who need help and support. More specifically, this article advocates formalising current best practice in the Court of Protection through the introduction of a series of rebuttable presumptions, or starting points.     

A 21st Century Developmentally Appropriate Juvenile Probation Approach

Principles of adolescent development have accelerated positive changes to the juvenile justice system. These changes have been most pronounced in reducing reliance on incarceration and in approaches to sentencing of youth tried as adults. While juvenile probation has made some developmentally friendly adjustments, it remains an area that is fertile for reform. Many of the principles and goals in this paper have been endorsed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), which “supports and is committed to juvenile probation systems that conform to the latest knowledge of adolescent development and adolescent brain science,” and which “recommends that courts cease imposing ‘conditions of probation’ and instead support probation departments’ developing, with families and youth, individualized case plans that set expectations and goals.” 1 NCJFCJ's July, 2017 resolution in support of developmentally appropriate juvenile probation services built on earlier NCJFCJ policies. From the time NCJFCJ adopted Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines in 2005, those policies have grown increasingly robust. 2     

Mentally ill offenders eligible for diversion at local court in New South Wales (NSW), Australia: factors associated with initially successful diversion

Diversion away from the criminal justice system and into mental health treatment services is a key strategy for addressing the well-established burden of mental illness suffered by those presenting to court. While mental health courts, court liaison and court diversion services have been developed in many jurisdictions internationally, there is limited research evidence to support their effectiveness in identifying those with mental health need and achieving successful diversion. The Statewide Community and Court Liaison Service in New South Wales, Australia, identifies mentally ill offenders likely to meet legal eligibility criteria for diversion at the busiest local courts across the state. Utilising data collected by mental health clinicians working in the service, 8317 individuals were identified as being eligible for court diversion on at least one occasion during the study period (1 July 2008 and the 30 June 2015) and 57.3% were subsequently diverted by Magistrates. Successful diversion at this first step was associated with being female, older, of non-Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background, and having a serious mental illness, replicated when stratified by sex and by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background. There may be barriers to mental health diversion at court for individuals with particular socio-demographic characteristics which future service developments may need to take into account.     

The European Court of Justice in Bolagsupplysningen: The Brussels I Recast Regulation's jurisdictional rules for online infringement of personality rights further clarified

In the European Union the Brussels Ibis Regulation governs the jurisdiction of Member State courts in civil and commercial matters. The reference for a preliminary ruling coming from the Estonian Supreme Court in the Bolagsupplysningen case offered the European Court of Justice another opportunity to develop its interpretation of the special ground for non-contractual obligations (article 7.2). The European Court of Justice's Grand Chamber ruled that legal persons, like natural persons, have the option of bringing a claim based on the infringement of personality rights by an online publication before the courts of the Member State where their centre of interests is located. It laid down that the centre of interests of a legal person pursuing an economic activity is determined by reference to the place where the company carries out the main part of its economic activities. The victim of a tortious internet publication can only seek an order for rectification and removal of the incorrect information in the courts that have jurisdiction over the entirety of the harm sustained and not before the courts that only enjoy jurisdiction with regard to the damage suffered in their territory.     

RETHINKING CHINESE EVIDENCE THEORIES AND RECONSTRUCTING SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE: “A THREAD FOR THE PEARLS OF CHINESE EVIDENCE”

This article analyses Chinese traditional evidence theories that have evolved over a long period of time, to explore which theory, between objectivity and relevancy, best represents the basic attribute and logical thread of evidence. These theories are considered in the context of issues arising in evidential adjudication, including: the “Mirror of Evidence,” truth, the probability of proof standard, the choice between a notion of pursuing 100-percent certainty in adjudication and that wrongful acquittals are better than wrongful convictions, and the statutory proof doctrine comparedwith the system of free proof. Finally, the article presents the framework of and methods for drafting provisions of procedural evidence of the People’s Court.     

Opinion 1/15 of the Grand Chamber dated 26 July 2017 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada

On 26 July 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice rendered its seminal Opinion 1/15 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada. The Grand Chamber considered that the decision of the Council about the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the agreement between the EU and Canada about the transfer and processing of PNR data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) about the protection of personal data and Article 87(2)(a) about police co-operation among member states in criminal matters, but not on Article 82(1)(d) about judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the EU of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The Grand Chamber also considered that the agreement is incompatible with Article 7 on the right to respect for private life, Article 8 on the right to the protection of personal data, Article 21 on non-discrimination and Article 52(1) on the principle of proportionality of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU since it does not preclude the transfer, use and retention of sensitive data. In addition to the requirement to exclude such data, the Grand Chamber listed seven requirements that the agreement must include, specify, limit or guarantee to be compatible with the Charter.The opinion of the Grand Chamber has far-reaching implications for the agreement on PNR data between the EU and Canada. It has also far-reaching implications for international agreements on PNR data between the EU and other third states. Last, it has far-reaching implications for Directive 681 of 27 April 2016 on PNR data.     

中国行政诉讼制度发展的新路向

我国现行的行政诉讼制度存在诸多缺陷,导致行政诉讼的功能未能充分发挥,有必要通过制度变革加以完善。应该设立行政法院,切实保证行政审判的独立公正;将行政机关之外行政诉讼被告的表述,从"法律、法规授权的组织"变更为"其他承担行政任务的主体";将部分行政规范纳入行政诉讼的受案范围;强化法院对行政裁量与行政解释的审查力度。