Securities laws ‘facilitating’ private enforcement

La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer (J Financ 61:1–32, 2006) (LLS) have undertaken an empirical analysis, making a critical but somewhat provocative proposition that “securities laws ‘facilitating’ private enforcement, rather than providing for public enforcement, benefit the securities market.” After briefly providing a theoretical connection to the existing law and economics literature, I attempt to empirically advance this LLS proposition two-fold, particularly on the ‘joint use of regulation and the liability rule,’ by exploring the most meaningful word ‘facilitate’ therein. Firstly, I explore the cross-country LLS data associated with the specific case of an initial public offering to seek possibly more solid evidence on the facilitating effect. Secondly, motivated by LLS, I pursue a within-country positive analysis, regarding the major determinants of the joint use, but across overall harmful activities covered in the Korean Securities Law. The major tenet underscoring this second empirical exploration was the clear message from the existing theoretical literature that the joint use should be adopted in a selective manner even within a single substantive statute, because it usually governs vastly different harmful activities. Finally, I call for some essential research agenda, prior to approving the ineffectiveness of public enforcement claimed in the second part of the LLS proposition.

校园人身伤害赔偿案件中保险公司的诉讼地位和赔偿责任

作为校方责任险一方的保险公司在校园人身伤害赔偿案件中的诉讼地位和赔偿责任与其在交通事故损害赔偿案件中的诉讼地位和赔偿责任有本质不同。     

Automated consent through privacy agents: Legal requirements and technical architecture

The changes imposed by new information technologies, especially pervasive computing and the Internet, require a deep reflection on the fundamental values underlying privacy and the best way to achieve their protection. The explicit consent of the data subject, which is a cornerstone of most data protection regulations, is a typical example of requirement which is very difficult to put into practice in the new world of “pervasive computing” where many data communications necessarily occur without the users' notice. In this paper, we argue that an architecture based on “Privacy Agents” can make privacy rights protection more effective, provided however that this architecture meets a number of legal requirements to ensure the validity of consent delivered through such Privacy Agents. We first present a legal analysis of consent considering successively (1) its nature; (2) its essential features (qualities and defects) and (3) its formal requirements. Then we draw the lessons of this legal analysis for the design of a valid architecture based on Privacy Agents. To conclude, we suggest an implementation of this architecture proposed in a multidisciplinary project involving lawyers and computer scientists.     

意思表示解释规则的语用学分析

意思表示解释对当事人真意的探寻实际上需要通过语义的探究来实现。语用学以语言哲学对意义的思考为滥觞,为意思表示的解释提供了新的视野和方法。依照解释学理论建构的意思表示解释规则,在一定程度上与语用学的意义探究方法相契合,但同时也表现出零散、不系统和立场游移的特点。因而,意思表示解释规则的建构应综合解释学的"解释者—文本"与语用学的"言语—言说者"双重视角,为解释者提供更具操作性的规则。     

医疗机构在医药产品侵权中的责任研究——以中外对比研究为重点

由于医药产品在医疗活动得到了广泛应用,医药产品侵权问题也成为一个热点问题。世界各国对医疗机构在有缺陷的医药产品侵权中是否承担责任以及如何承担责任主要有两种做法：一是,医疗机构作为医疗服务的提供者不承担产品责任,而由产品的生产者和销售者按照严格责任原则承担产品责任。这一做法以英国和美国为代表。二是,医疗机构通过提供医药产品获得经济,其行为性质与销售无异,因而与产品的生产者、销售者按照严格责任原则承担连带责任。这一种做法以欧盟为代表。笔者认为,我国《侵权责任法》采第二种做法。本文采用共同侵权的连带责任原理对《侵权责任法》的相关规定进行分析。连带责任产生外部法律效果和内部法律效果。就外部法律效果而言,对医疗机构和生产者同时适用产品责任的严格责任原则,患者既可以向生产者请求赔偿,也可向医疗机构请求赔偿。就内部法律效果而言,对医疗机构和生产者分别适用过错原则和产品责任的严格责任原则,即医疗机构在经患者请求赔偿其损害后,如果对医药产品的缺陷没有过错,可以向生产者追偿。我国《侵权责任法》的规定在倾斜保护患者利益的同时,有可能产生负面影响。医疗机构应当积极应对。     

法律原则核心问题论辩

法律原则理论主要包括法律原则规范属性理论、法律原则区分理论以及法律原则适用理论三个部分。法律原则在规范评价与事实描述两个层面上均作为有效的规范类型存在,它与法律规则作为两大构成要素并存于法律规范之中,它们之间的差异是逻辑性的而不是程度上的,但两者的关键区分在于法律原则无法像法律规则那样被承认规则所鉴别。法律原则不可以直接适用于具体个案,只能在符合形式限定与实质限定的条件下发挥其规范作用。对于我国许多学者基于实用主义偏好而热衷的法律原则适用理论,我们需要保持一种前提性的反思,有意识地进行语境置换,以便更好地把握法律原则的意涵。     

侵权责任法的中国特色

我国侵权责任法不仅批判性借鉴了两大法系在法制发展史中形成的先进经验,更是对我国近几十年来侵权立法、司法和理论发展经验的总结和发展,其诸多具体制度彰显了鲜明的中国特色。深入揭示侵权责任法的中国特色和立法经验,有助于为进步一推进我国民法体系化进程提供经验,促进法学理论和实践从继受主导模式向自主创造主导模式转化。     

论医疗损害技术鉴定危机与改革

法律规定的不完善以及法官对鉴定结论的依赖性造成了目前医疗鉴定中,医疗事故技术鉴定与法医学医疗鉴定共存的二元化局面。侵权责任法在民事赔偿上否定了医疗事故的概念,提出以医疗损害责任为核心的民事责任制度,使医疗鉴定面临了新的问题。医疗事故技术鉴定机制和法医学医疗鉴定机制都存在种种缺陷,不能完全满足侵权责任法对医疗鉴定的新的需求。无论是鉴定结论的固有属性还是侵权责任法的新的技术内容都要求对现有的医疗事故技术鉴定模式进行改革,建立起符合《侵权责任法》要求的医疗损害技术鉴定制度。     

论医疗损害技术鉴定危机与改革

法律规定的不完善以及法官对鉴定结论的依赖性造成了目前医疗鉴定中,医疗事故技术鉴定与法医学医疗鉴定共存的二元化局面。侵权责任法在民事赔偿上否定了医疗事故的概念,提出以医疗损害责任为核心的民事责任制度,使医疗鉴定面临了新的问题。医疗事故技术鉴定机制和法医学医疗鉴定机制都存在种种缺陷,不能完全满足侵权责任法对医疗鉴定的新的需求。无论是鉴定结论的固有属性还是侵权责任法的新的技术内容都要求对现有的医疗事故技术鉴定模式进行改革,建立起符合《侵权责任法》要求的医疗损害技术鉴定制度。     

What accounts for Duverger's law? The behavioral mechanisms underpinning two-party convergence in India

Duverger's Law states the single-member district plurality rules should produce two-party competition. In district-level election races where this expectation holds, what political behaviors—ranging from elites' strategic formation of political parties to voters' strategic abandonment of losing candidates—account for these outcomes? Using data from state elections in India, this article demonstrates that no single mechanism accounts for most electoral outcomes consistent with Duverger's Law. However, mechanisms related to the behavior elites, far more than voters, produce convergence on two-party competition. This article uncovers relatively little evidence of outcomes driven by strategic voting, instead finding that much of the convergence on two parties is attributable to various forms of strategic entry in which parties selectively field candidates in certain races. In particular, elite collusion—when multiple parties coordinate on where to field candidates—is especially important. Data from other countries confirm that these findings are not unique to India.