两岸无单放货场合下责任竞合的比较

对承运人而言,交货时收回正本提单具有双重法律意义,即物权意义与债权意义。承运人无单放货往往会同时侵犯提单持有人基于货物占有关系的物权与基于运输合同关系的债权,其依侵权法应承担侵权责任,而依合同法则应承担违约责任。这就涉及传统民法中一个长期争论的重要问题,即如何处理违约责任与侵权责任的竞合关系。以海峡两岸海上货物运输中的无单放货现象为研究背景,从两岸民法和海商法的现行规定、判例出发,逐一探讨责任竞合基础、承运人承责方式、责任竞合内涵与竞合模式评价等四个问题。     

海上货运委托合同受托人责任之归责原则反思

《中华人民共和国合同法》第406条中表述的“过错”与“故意”“重大过失”相对应,强调的是受托人在履行委托合同过程中对注意义务违反的范围,而非主观心理状态。海上货运委托合同项下,“过错”不应独立出来成为受托人承担责任的要件,因为过错的因素已经包含在违约行为这一基本要义之中。将过错的举证责任倒置给受托人,在一定程度上等同于将违约行为的证明责任转移给了受托人,这可能导致委托双方利益的失衡。相关司法解释的制定应建立在对《中华人民共和国合同法》第406条准确理解的基础上,根据海上货运委托合同完全商事化的特点,明确海上货运委托合同适用严格责任原则,使司法解释中委托双方权利义务的规定达到“准立法”的科学合理的目的。     

对国际货物运输法统一化努力的思考

《联合国全程或者部分海上国际货物运输合同公约》是国际社会为推进国际货物运输法的统一而作的又一次努力。结合这一统一化运动,分析国际货物运输法统一化的动因、悖论、成果的局限性以及中国在这一过程中所起的作用,并对国际货物运输法统一化给予客观的评价。     

无正本提单交付货物的中英法律解读

无正本提单交付货物一直是困扰国际海上货物运输的主要问题之一。应该说,自从提单这一运输单证诞生并开始肩负作为交付货物凭证的功能时起,无单放货就伴随其产生了。从承运人的角度来说,最关心的莫过于如何认定无单放货的形式和性质以及因承担无单放货而产生的责任;从正本提单持有人的角度来说,在承运人无单放货的情况下如何行使索赔权则是其关注的核心。为了解决中国海事司法审判实践中出现的有关无正本提单交付货物纠纷的法律适用方面的问题,最高人民法院在2009年3月5日出台了《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》,由于在起草过程中大量借鉴了国外海事审判经验,而英国又是海事审判最先进的国家之一,积累了大量有关无单放货的判例,因此有必要通过这些案例来对该规定的主要内容进行解读,以便对相关内容进行更好的理解和把握。     

论《鹿特丹规则》中的无单放货问题

在当前的海运实践中,无单放货现象普遍存在。为了解决这一问题,《鹿特丹规则》改变了过去将凭单放货作为承运人一项强制性义务的做法,反而允许承运人在某些情况下可以无单放货并无须承担相应的法律责任。此种新规定有其积极的意义,但也存在着诸多不成熟和不完善之处。在这一问题上,我国应保持谨慎的态度,切不可盲目移植《鹿特丹规则》中的新规定。     

试论“后悔权”设立之法学证成

作为舶来事物,＂后悔权＂一经浮出水面,即遭受或赞或弹的命运。其中的质疑不无道理,但又有失偏颇。据此,厘清＂后悔权＂之真正意旨,区别相关权利,奠定对其讨论的正确基础实为必须且为必要。此外,＂后悔权＂作为一个货真价实的＂国际惯例＂,无理由将之拒之门外,但为避免＂水土不服＂的尴尬,其设立必须兼顾本土实际,即：一切从实际出发,设立中国特色的＂后悔权＂制度——＂有限后悔权＂制度。     

图书书名商标权保护解析

图书书名的精炼和高度概括使其难以获得《著作权法》的保护,而《商标法》保护的可行性探讨就势在必行。首先,在明确图书分类的基础上对所需要讨论的范围进行限定,并就图书书名的功能展开分析。其次,图书书名能否获得商标法意义上的保护和如何避免侵犯他人商标权属于硬币的两面,正确分析和划定二者之间的范围和界限,决定了图书书名在商标法意义上保护的可行性。最后,国外相关的立法例为图书书名商标法意义上的保护提供了反证,故适用《商标法》对其进行规制存在着难以逾越的障碍,而适用《反不正当竞争法》保护书名的可行性论证填补了这一权利保护的漏洞,并为司法实践提供了有益尝试。     

Examining the good lives model and antisocial behaviour

This study examined the utility of the Good Lives Model (GLM) (Ward, T., &; Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(4), 353–360. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.34.4.353) in understanding offending behaviour in students. Two hypotheses were made, consistent with the assumptions of the GLM. First, that participants would endorse the importance of the primary goods set out in the GLM. Second, that reports of antisocial behaviour would relate to a lack of effective strategies, or use of maladaptive strategies, to achieve primary goods. Participants (n?=?340, M age?=?20 years) completed a questionnaire (Measure of Life Priorities) assessing their pursuit, valuation, and achievement of the primary human goods as set out in the GLM and a Self-Report of Offending questionnaire. Results supported our hypotheses, and subsequently the assumptions of the GLM. Our findings support the continued use of the GLM as a theoretical and treatment oriented framework in diverse groups engaged in offending behaviour. Future research should continue to ground the GLM in empirical support.     

Funding Global Public Goods: The Dark Side of Multilateralism

The funding of global public goods, such as climate mitigation, presents a complex strategic problem. Potential recipients demand side payments for implementing projects that furnish global public goods, and donors can cooperate to provide the funding. We offer a game‐theoretic analysis of this problem. In our model, a recipient demands project funding. Donors can form a multilateral program to jointly fund the project. If no program is formed, bilateral funding remains a possibility. We find that donors rely on multilateralism if their preferences are relatively symmetric and domestic political constraints on funding are lax. In this case, the recipient secures large rents from project implementation. Thus, even donors with strong interests in global public good provision have incentives to oppose institutional arrangements that promote multilateral funding. These incentives have played an important role in multilateral negotiations on climate finance, especially in Cancun (2010) and Durban (2011).     

Understanding European asylum cooperation under the Schengen/Dublin system: a public goods framework

Abstract

Recent developments in European Union (EU) asylum cooperation raise important questions about the nature of cooperation and the potential problems facing collective action in the realm of EU internal security. The emergence and the subsequent stability of the Schengen/Dublin system is especially puzzling, given the highly inequitable distribution of costs and benefits that this system entails among the participating states and begs the question as to why those states that are likely to face a disproportionate ‘burden’ under the system would have agreed to it. This article seeks to provide an alternative approach to answering this question by drawing on a public goods framework. We argue that a simple focus on free-riding and exploitation dynamics, as emphasized in the traditional collective action literature, falls short as an explanation and instead demonstrates how more recent theoretical contributions to the public goods literature can offer new insights into the origin and evolution in cooperation in this sensitive policy area.