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.

论股东责任恒定制度的确立

股东有限责任制度被法学界的许多学者誉为公司“传统的奠基石”。然而，在这一制度的框架内，股东与债权人之间利益之不平衡是显而易见的，在工业文明起始阶段，此制度之创立无疑是人类之大幸，但社会经济发展到今天，仍固守传统的有限责任制度而不作些许更改，则颇有挑战公平、正义之意味，鉴于此，笔者隧原创性地提出“股东有限责任恒定”之议题，以便能使股东与债权人在“公平与效率”之间找到一个更为适度的契合点。但愿次文能起到抛砖引玉之功效。     

论侵权请求权的优先权保障

依据私权优先原则,《侵权责任法》第4条规定了侵权请求权的优先权保障制度。侵权请求权优先权是担保物权,就侵权人的全部财产而设立,其目的在于保障被侵权人在就同一行为应当承担侵权责任和刑事责任、行政责任,侵权人的财产不足以支付的情况下,优先实现侵权请求权。侵权请求权优先权能够对抗刑事责任或者行政责任中的财产性责任,对于税收优先权也应当具有对抗效力,但对其他债权则无对抗效力。     

浅议缔约过失责任的认定及其在我国的适用

缔约过失责任自确立迄今已有上百年历史,在大陆法系债法体系中发挥着巨大作用。我国合同法首次对缔约过失责任予以明确规定,为其适用奠定了法律基础,但其不足之处也显而易见。因此,必须科学构建缔约过失责任的理论体系,确定其适用范围,以解决缔约过失责任在我国的适用问题。     

论侵害法定先买权

法定先买权作为财产权，可以成为侵权行业的客体。侵害法定先买权，是诣出卖人或第三人由于过错妨害法定先买权的实现，造成法定先买权损害，应当承担民事责任的行为。这种侵权行为的客体为特殊物权，侵权行为人可能是出卖人，也可能是第三人。侵权责任的构成要件中，主观心理状态出卖人为过失，第三人为故意；违法行为主要指违反法律对先买权人的具体规定；损害事 实为先买权人优先于他人取得标的物所有权机会的丧失。侵害法定先买权，既可能由出卖人或第三人单独承担责任，也可能由出卖人和第三人承担连带责任。     

中德履责之诉适当性研究进路之比较

学界与实务界就履责之诉的适当性长期未能形成根本性共识。我国的履责之诉适当性的研究是从界定行为类型入手,而这一研究进路是导致我国关于履责之诉适当性争议不休的根源。从履责之诉的适当性的研究进路入手,分析德国关于履责之诉适当性的研究思路,借鉴德国的诉讼目标模式,将是解决争议的新思路。     

论生命科技刑事责任的功能与我国刑法之完善

生命科技刑事责任在生命科技发展过程中具有自身特殊的功能。其对生命科学技术的健康发展起着重要的保障作用。当前，我国刑法尚未明确规定现代生命科技犯罪，现有的刑罚体系也远不适应打击生命科技犯罪的需要。为此，需要立法者采取相应的对策予以补救。     

Liability and food safety provision: Empirical evidence from the US

Recent environmental and food safety incidents are bringing attention to regulatory regimes and their effects on care provision. This article investigates the effects of the application of liability regimes with punitive damages in the reduction of food contamination episodes in the United States from 1990 to 2000. The main result is that the application of strict liability laws allowing claims of punitive damages decreases in a statistically significant way the number of food safety incidents. Statistical results show that states allowing claims of punitive damages are between 15% and 30% less likely to suffer food safety incidents.     

Unauthorised access to wireless local area networks: The limitations of the present Australian laws

Wireless local area networks (WLANs) have enjoyed a rapid increase in usage in recent years. WLANs serve to connect users to the Internet by means of radio or infrared frequencies. The rise in WLAN usage has however served to highlight some of the inadequacies of the present laws governing unauthorised access to WLANs. At present, the legislation serves to make unauthorised access, modification or impairment of electronic communications illegal. It is clear that the provisions prohibit the hacking of computer systems and denial of service attacks. However, it is unclear whether the legislation extends to additional forms of unauthorised access such as wardriving (using software to identify and map freely available WLAN) and joyriding (accessing a network with no further damage to the connection). The liability of Internet Service Providers and those engaged in unauthorised access in public places also remains unclear. Finally, the relationship of the offence of unauthorised access to the tort of trespass and the laws of copyright remain untested. The objective of this paper is to consider the measures necessary to increase the effectiveness of WLAN laws. The paper will begin by considering the nature of WLAN technology and the policy discourse to date. This will be followed by an examination of the present Australian law and an identification of areas of uncertainty. Finally, the paper will consider the measures required to enhance the certainty and effectiveness of the laws governing unauthorised access to WLAN.     

论股东虚假出资的民事法律责任

按期足额缴纳出资是股东的基本义务，无论在理论上还是在实践中，股东虚假出资都是极为重要的问题。股东违反此项义务虚假出资会损害其他股东、公司及公司债权人的利益，虚假出资的股东应当对其他股东承担违约责任，对公司承担侵权责任，对公司债权人承担债务清偿责任。