On judgment proofness in the case of bilateral harm

This paper defies the widely held belief concerning the unambiguous superiority of negligence in settings of judgment proofness. We analyze a set-up with bilateral harm, bilateral care, and potential judgment proofness by one party to the accident. We establish that strict liability with a defense of contributory negligence can perform better than simple negligence and negligence with a defense of contributory negligence. It is shown that the former liability rule can better establish a discontinuity in individual costs conducive to inducing efficient care than the other rules.

论司法判决的可接受性——基于听众理论的分析

提高司法判决的可接受性,依赖法官在判决时从独白转变为对话,佩雷尔曼、阿尔尼奥的听众理论能够提供新的研究视角。司法判决要说服听众,就必须寻找到听众认可的价值或规范作为论证起点。在司法活动中,因为现代社会价值具有多元性与不确定性等特征,所以只能以国家制定法作为听众认可的起点。在需要对法律进行阐释的领域,法官对法律的解释优先于听众对法律的理解。司法判决的结果是否具有可接受性,要看其是否符合合理性标准。合理与否需要在具体的语境与情境中探讨,为防止合理沦为主观擅断,司法判决可接受的合理性标准要受到后果主义和融贯性的双重审查。     

行政判决种类之重构

我国现行的行政判决包括维持、撤销、履行、变更等七种类型,但如此分类已与日益变化的行政诉讼实践脱节。因此,有必要对现行的行政判决种类进行重构和完善,以使其能够为相对人提供完整的行政救济,对行政主体的违法行为予以有效纠正,从而实现行政诉讼制度的根本功能。     

判决书中的法官形象

全面看待法官是公民的权利和公民责任,全面展示法官形象则是法官的本分。于法官或公民而言,全面的法官形象应该在判决书中。在一份全面、充分说理的严格意义的判决书中,法官是法律信用的督察者、法律解释中的立法者、道德与普法教育中的教师、法律服务中的售货员、合议博弈中的商人以及学者。     

Elite Messages and Source Cues: Moving Beyond Partisanship

According to previous studies, women in the U.S. Congress are often cast by the media and by voters as quite distinct from men, with a unique focus on women's issues and an outsider approach to governing. Contrary to the media's depiction and voters' expectations, however, an analysis of Congressional web sites reveals that women members, just as men in Congress do, portray themselves as having diverse interests and participating zealously in the Washington power struggle. Thus, women's self-presentations on the web do not support the notion that the images proffered by members contribute to media and voter stereotypes of women representatives.     

论规范性文件不予一并审查:判断要素及其认定规则——基于1799份裁判文书的分析

规范性文件“能否一并审查”是对规范性文件合法性进行实质审查的先决问题。根据现有的制度规定,可将司法实践中规范性文件不予一并审查的类型划分为基础性要件缺失、附带性要件缺失和例外情形等三类,每种类型都包含多种情形和不同判断要素。法院应当采取更加积极宽容的态度,尽可能地将更多的规范性文件纳入一并审查的范围。对于不予一并审查的规范性文件的认定,应当在区分规范性文件与非规范性文件的基础上,综合运用多种认定标准明确界定规范性文件排除审查的范围。应当赋予第三人一并审查的请求主体资格,并明确当事人延迟提出一并审查请求“正当理由”的判断标准。对于不予一并审查例外情形的认定,应审慎对待,严格约束法院司法裁量权的行使。     

行政诉讼应增加判决方式

在某些行政程序中,由于取得证据的对抗机制不充分,行政机关依法获取的证据在事实上并不真实或不完整,不能保证其认定事实的正确性。对于此类具体行政行为,为兼顾保障行政相对人的合法权益和支持行政机关依法行政,应当确认行政机关依法行政,同时撤销错误的具体行政行为。现有判决方式不能满足行政审判的此类需要,应增加这种新的判决方式。     

行政诉讼中的情况判决探讨

情况判决是行政诉讼判决中一种特殊的判决方式,具有特定的内涵和要件。日本和我国台湾地区的行政诉讼制度对情况判决作了明确的规定,我国大陆现行行政诉讼的司法解释实际上也规定了情况判决制度,但这三者的规定之间存在一定差异。我国大陆行政诉讼中的情况判决制度,在公共利益及其重大损失的认定,以及对原告救济途径等方面,需要进一步完善。     

A note on judgment proofness and risk aversion

Shavell (Int Rev Law Econ 6:45–58, 1986) established that potentially judgment-proof injurers will take less care than injurers with sufficient funds in the case of strict liability. This note considers strict liability and shows that the reverse may hold if individuals are risk averse, i.e., some potentially judgment-proof injurers expend more on care than some injurers with assets greater than the harm. I am indebted to Florian Baumann, Laszlo Goerke, and an anonymous referee for very helpful suggestions.     

对我国现行民事诉讼调解制度的反思及重构

民事诉讼中调解制度的废存与改革问题一直是学界争论的热点问题.我国民事诉讼调解无疑有其合理性,其解决纠纷的高效性是有目共睹的,而这正是纠纷日益膨胀的今天所必须的,但目前我国民事诉讼中实行的调审合一制度不仅没有发挥调解的优势,反而在扭曲调解制度的同时破坏了审判的公正性.因而应寻求一种既能充分发挥调解优势,又能保证审判的公正性的新制度,即调审分立制度.