非洲猪瘟CD2v胞外区基因片段的真核表达及其多克隆抗体的制备

本研究利用真核表达系统表达非洲猪瘟病毒的CD2v胞外区蛋白,研究其免疫特性,制备多克隆抗体并研究其性质,为研发特异性单抗奠定数据基础.以非洲猪瘟病毒Wuhan2019-1株(GenBank:MN393476.1)为模板,合成CD2v胞外区基因序列,并将其克隆至真核表达载体pCAGGS载体中,获得pC-AGGS-CD2v...     

The PRC-Laos BIT is Applicable to the Macau SAR?

On29September2016,theCourtoftheAppealoftheRepublicofSingaporeissuedthejudgmentconcerningSanumInvestmentLimitedv.TheGovernmentoftheLaoPeople’sDemocraticRepublic.Inthisjudgment,theCourtdeclaredthatthePRC-LaosBITwasapplicabletoMacauSAR.However,thejudgmentmadebytheCourtiswrongandthustriggeredaseriesofridiculousconclusionsbecauseofthewrongfulinterpretationonArticle31ofthe1969ViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,thewrongfulidentificationonthenatureofthecustomsinternationalruleforthe“movingtreatyfrontier”rule,andtheinappropriatestandardofproofontheissueof“otherwiseestablished”.     

Contractual Interpretation,Registered Documents and Third Party Effects

This article considers whether extrinsic material should be available in interpreting registered documents when these may be contractual in nature or relate to contractual agreements. Many registers, for example the current scheme for recording land title, are intended to facilitate the reliance of third parties on their content, an objective that suggests that extrinsic material should be excluded. Such an approach, however, could itself cause unfairness and conflicts with the way that contractual documents are normally interpreted. Exploring this question leads us to consider the contextual approach to contractual interpretation generally and whether it should take account of the contemplated effects of contractual language on third parties. After concluding in the affirmative, we then ask whether this is sufficient as an approach to interpreting contractual documents entered into a register.     

Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust: The Objective Justification Test for Age Discrimination

This note discusses the limits to the defence of objective justification when applied to direct age discrimination, specifically with regard to situations where the employer attempts to rely on cost‐saving as a legitimate aim. The author examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice, ECJ) on which this case relies, and considers whether the defence has been interpreted too widely, opening up the possibility of cost‐saving as a defence to discrimination on the grounds of this particular protected characteristic. The note concludes that, while cost‐saving cannot be the sole justification for less favourable treatment by employers, it may nevertheless form part of an overall legitimate aim when coupled with additional factors.     

Can We Protect How We Do What We Do? A Consideration of Business Method Patents in Australia and Europe

In the long history of monopolies, business method patents area novel and recent edition. In the Digital Age, where time ismoney and speed is everything, innovative methods for undertakingbusiness are as important to a business as the products or servicesit provides to its clients. In recent years several reviews,conducted in both Australia and internationally,⁴ have questionedthe appropriateness of patenting business methods. This paperreviews the availability of business method patents in Australiain light of the 2006 decision of the Full Court of the FederalCourt in Grant v Commissioner of Patents,⁵ which confirmed theneed in Australia for a ‘useful product’ to issuefrom the working of a method (business or otherwise) in orderfor the method to be patentable. This paper will review argumentsboth criticising and defending business method patents and considerwhether business methods warrant special treatment.     

The Territorial Scope of Employment Legislation and Choice of Law

Traditionally, the determination of the territorial scope of the statutory rights conferred by employment legislation forming part of English law has been regarded as an issue entirely disconnected from the choice‐of‐law process. Indeed, this view formed the basis of the key decision addressing the problem of territoriality, Lawson v Serco, decided by the House of Lords in 2006. After presenting the current state of the law with regard to the territorial scope of employment legislation, this article takes a critical look at Lawson v Serco. It is argued that the ‘European’ choice‐of‐law rules must have a greater importance for determining the territorial scope of employment legislation and, consequently, that the approach pursued in Lawson v Serco is no longer correct, if it ever was, and should not be followed in the future.     

What Liquidation Does For Secured Creditors, And What It Does For You

This article analyses the liquidation process, challenging the much repeated proposition that secured claimants 'stand outside' liquidation. It is argued that this proposition (i) is a product of a misunderstanding of the dual duality in the nature of liquidation proceedings, in that, in principle, they serve both public and private functions, and they further the interests of both secured and unsecured creditors; (ii) overlooks how secured creditors benefit from liquidation, and also how unsecured creditors have a real interest in the proper administration of their debtor's encumbered assets; (iii) mistakes the secured creditor's choice in usually being able to gain immunity from the liquidation process, for a compulsion to stand exiled from this process; (iv) is incorrect as a matter of history and practice; and (v) is rendered unsustainable by the statutory text. It concludes that secured creditors have never 'stood outside' liquidation, that liquidation is an important tool for the protection of their interests, and that it is right to require floating charge holders to pay their fair share of liquidation expenses.     

结合Sheppard v.Maxwe11案谈我国媒体与司法和谐关系的构建

本文通过对Sheppard v.Maxwell案具体案情利审理的分析,介绍了美国解决媒体与司法冲突的理念和对策,并从立法机关、新闻媒体、司法机关三方面对我国媒体与司法和谐关系的构建提出了具体的建议。     

林诉亚利桑那州案与美国的死刑陪审团制度

林诉亚利桑那州案是美国死刑量刑制度中一个具有里程碑意义的重要判例,自该案之后,美国联邦最高法院确立了陪审团在量刑中的无可替代的法律地位,即量刑中加重情节必须由陪审团而不是法官加以认定。该案的背景情况以及法律争议在美国死刑程序中极具代表性,对法官独立量刑州以及混合程序州均产生了重大影响,立法机构也作出了积极的回应,其深远的影响将极大地改变美国死刑制度的未来发展。