《劳动合同法》中工会的职权分析

维护职工合法权益既是工会的基本职权,也是工会的基本职责。在新的历史条件下,构建工会的职权体系是有效防范和化解劳资双方矛盾的一条切实可行的路子。我国新近颁布的《劳动合同法》赋予工会的职权可以概括为5个方面的内容,即协商权、异议权、签约权、起诉权和监督权。工会的这一职权体系是一个整体,但这些规定也存在一些问题和不足,尤其是关于签约权、监督权和起诉权的规定均需要进一步完善。     

论“不具有可撤销内容”行政行为的法律适用

行政诉讼法司法解释第57条对“不具有可撤销内容”的行政行为的规定存在模糊之处,第58条对“第三人合法权益”的保护也极为不利。对行政行为不可撤销的四种情形分别进行分析,或许可以解决上述问题。     

论课予义务诉讼——对行政不作为的救济形式

行政不作为对行政相对方权益造成侵害的情况日益严重。借鉴域外经验,从诉讼经济原则出发,对行政不作为的司法救济宜适用课予义务诉讼。课予义务诉讼可分为不纯粹的不作为之诉和纯粹的不作为之诉两种,分别适用不同的诉讼要件、审理方式和举证责任。对课予义务诉讼,法院可作出履行判决或驳回诉讼请求的判决。     

股权出资问题研究

《公司法修改草案》将股权纳入出资形式当中,这一做法是值得商榷的。在公司法上,可以作为出资标的物应当符合两项标准:具有确定的价值和可以自由转让。股权作为一项综合性的权利,在不同的公司类型中体现出不同的特征。只有上市公司的流通股和非上市公司的社会公众股能够作为出资标的,而有限责任公司和发起设立的股份有限公司的股权则不宜作为出资标的。并且,《公司法》在承认部分股权可以作为出资的同时,也应当增设相应的救济措施,以弥补股权出资所可能带来的负面影响。     

Fragmenting Fatherhood: The Regulation of Reproductive Technologies

Reproductive technologies offer the potential to break down parenthood into a number of constituent parts. These disruptive possibilities mean that the regulation of reproductive technologies holds important potential for study, providing a significant resource that has been little analysed with regard to fatherhood. This study attempts to remedy that lacuna through consideration of a range of recent developments in this area of English law. It reaches two general conclusions. First, while the law regulating reproductive technologies attributes great importance to fatherhood, this is rooted primarily (though not exclusively) in concerns for the symbolic importance of fathers, rather than in more practical considerations such as ensuring financial provision or a second hands-on carer for a child. Secondly, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990) contains a clear attempt to protect and entrench the role of the father as completing the nuclear family. However, recent developments suggest that this legal preference for the nuclear family is subject to clear emerging cracks.     

行政行为效力理论与确认判决制度

理论界对行政行为的成立、生效、合法、无效等基本概念的界定模糊,导致行政确认判决存在众多问题。确认合法、有效判决违反不告不理原则,且与行政诉讼的目的相背。无效行政行为在立法上的矛盾令实务界陷入两难境地,必须对此加以研究和完善。     

Adopting (in)equality in the UK: the Equality Act 2010 and its impact on charities

This article considers the relationship between the Equality Act 2010 and the Charities Act 2011 (in Scotland, the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005) in the context of adoption by same-sex couples and the complex exceptions to the Equality Act that charities may be able to rely upon in order to continue to discriminate. It concludes that the law is confusing to the point of opacity, to the detriment of those seeking to exercise their rights and those called on to adjudicate conflicts.     

Planning for incapacity by people with bipolar disorder under the Mental Capacity Act 2005

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides a variety of legal mechanisms for people to plan for periods of incapacity for decisions relating to personal care, medical treatment, and financial matters. Little research has however been done to determine the degree to which these are actually implemented, and the approach to such advance planning by service users and professionals. This paper looks at the use of advance planning by people with bipolar disorder, using qualitative and quantitative surveys both of people with bipolar disorder and psychiatrists. The study finds that the mechanisms are under-used in this group, despite official policy in support of them, largely because of a lack of knowledge about them among service users, and there is considerable confusion among service users and professionals alike as to how the mechanisms operate. Recording is at best inconsistent, raising questions as to whether the mechanisms will be followed.     

The Digital Economy Act 2010: subscriber monitoring and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR

This paper critically assesses the compatibility of s3 Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) (ECHR). The analysis draws on Ofcom’s Initial Obligations and two UK cases, namely: British Telecommunications Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills,¹1 British Telecommunications Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin).View all notes and R (British Telecommunications plc and TalkTalk Telecom Group plc) v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others.²2 R (British Telecommunications plc and TalkTalk Telecom Group plc) v Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and others [2012] EWCA Civ 232.View all notes It argues that the implementation of this obligation allows directed surveillance of subscribers’ activities without legal authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It also analyses compliance with the Strasbourg Court’s three-part, non-cumulative test, to determine whether s3 of the DEA is, firstly, ‘in accordance with the law’; secondly, pursues one or more legitimate aims contained within Article 8(2) of the Convention; and thirdly, is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. It concludes that unless the implementation of s3 of the DEA required the involvement of State authorities and was specifically targeted at serious, commercial scale online copyright infringement cases it could infringe part one and part three of the ECtHR’s test, thereby violating subscribers’ Article 8 ECHR rights.