家事诉讼中法院证据调查制度研究——以我国诉讼模式的转换为背景

在我国立法和司法实践中,并没有明确家事诉讼与一般民事诉讼的区别,缺乏对家事诉讼的特殊性的考虑,尤其是在证据调查领域。在当事人主义诉讼模式下,当事人在举证不能或者遇到困难时,缺乏救济的方式和途径,法院也严格遵循一般民事纠纷的举证原则,不予主动调查。同时,法官的依职权介入容易被指责为职权主义的回归,从而有违法官中立的原则。在我国民事诉讼模式转型的背景下,家事诉讼中法院证据调查权不仅从实质正义的视角出发促进了中立原则的实现,而且弥补了当事人主义诉讼模式存在的缺陷。     

权利冲突的司法化解

法定权利之间的冲突并非一个伪命题,其在司法实践中颇为常见。受到立法者的有限理性、社会的变动性以及法律语言的模糊性等多重因素的影响,某些情形下权利的边界未被立法者清晰界定,并由此引发法定权利之间的冲突。权利冲突的实质是利益冲突和价值冲突。权利冲突的存在导致了法律适用的难题,法官需要借助个案中的法益衡量来确定权利边界并进而化解权利冲突。法官在进行法益衡量时,可以参考权利位阶来作出判断,然而权利位阶秩序缺乏整体确定性,仅有有限的参考价值,因此法益衡量还需诉诸比例原则。比例原则包括适当性原则、必要性原则和狭义的比例原则三项子原则。比例原则能够指引法官对权利作客观和理性的衡量,最大限度地缩小法官的裁量余地。鉴于个案中的法益衡量具有决策性质,法官必须在司法能动主义与司法克制主义之间维持恰当的平衡,在解决权利冲突时不能逾越司法的限度。     

甲卡西酮类新型策划毒品的危害及其检测

甲卡西酮类策划药物是近年出现的新型毒品,在世界范围内已经形成滥用趋势。在介绍甲卡西酮类策划毒品的结构、性质及作用的基础上,对于其滥用现状、危害性和检测方进行了综述,以期对建立复杂生物检材中痕量甲卡西酮类策划毒品的高灵敏检测方法有所助益,对研究甲卡西酮类毒品的毒性作用、体内代谢过程及戒断机制提供参考和依据。     

反思精神障碍强制医疗的“危险性”原则

很多国家精神卫生立法在强制医疗人院标准方面都适用了“危险性”原则,我国《精神卫生法》也在其列。然而,“危险性”原则是基于三个错误的假设,因此实际上“危险性”原则可能会增加精神疾病对患者的伤害和较大程度增加社区危险的风险。本文呼吁参考Large及Richardson的观点及美国部分州与苏格兰精神卫生立法的实证经验,在“危险性”原则基础上补充“拒绝治疗的能力”评定作为精神障碍者强制医疗入院标准。     

道德难题与立法选择——法律道德主义立场及实践检讨

传统的法律道德主义者认为国家对道德事务享有判断权,并且在必要时为了保护社会可以动用法律限制公民的道德自由。然而该理论却无法回应"道德民粹主义"和"经验主义"的批评,在此基础上发展出来的新法律道德主义理论尽管精致,但仍然面临着"帕累托挑战"和"权衡难题"。有关法律道德主义的主要争议并不在于道德是否能够入法,而在于其入法的限度和具体方式。中国的立法、执法及司法的各阶段中均存在着不尽相同的法律道德主义形态,隐藏于其背后的"道德的法律强制"值得警惕,我们无法一劳永逸地确定出一条自由社会的道德底线,而注重各种价值之间的权衡却实属重要。     

论机动车交通事故责任的赔偿主体

不同的归责原则体现不同的责任分配思想和责任承担基础,因此其责任主体的认定标准也不相同。《道路交通安全法》第76条没有采纳单一的归责原则,而是区分不同的责任范围和交通事故类型分别适用不同的归责原则。"运行支配和运行利益"是危险责任原则下保有者或者运行供用者的判断标准,因此将其作为我国机动车交通事故责任主体的判断标准必然与《道路交通安全法》第76条第(一)项所确立的过错责任相冲突。我国未来制定的民法典应当在厘清归责原则与责任主体之间关系的基础上,正确定位机动车交通事故责任的归责原则,并规定与之相适应的责任主体。     

行政程序法基本原则研究

为了实现行政程序法的公正、效率价值和达到规范行政权的行使、保护相对人合法权益的立法目的,行政程序法应遵循程序法定原则、比例原则、信赖保护原则、行政公开原则等四项基本原则。该四项基本原则体现了行政程序法程序与实体并存的特点,并承担了价值和规则沟通桥梁的角色。     

从竞争法角度看反倾销法律制度

反倾销法律制度是WTO法律体系中一项重要的法律制度 ,自GATT第 6条确立反倾销法律制度以来 ,许多国家都在国内制定和适用了反倾销法 ,但是随着贸易自由化的发展 ,反倾销法的滥用就成为一个现实的问题 ,于是就提出了是否要改革现有的反倾销法 ,以及如何进行改革的问题。试图从竞争法的角度来论证反倾销的不合理性 ,并指出了我国在未来的取舍     

Evaluating the sensitivity,stability, and cross-reactivity of commercial fentanyl immunoassay test strips

Illicit fentanyl has flooded the United States' drug market, increasing the risk of overdose and poisonings throughout the general population and accidental exposure among law enforcement officers confiscating the increasing number of seizures. Fentanyl test strips (FTS) are used to obtain presumptive information about the presence of fentanyl in a suspected sample. However, their adoption by law enforcement personnel and seized-drug analysts has been limited because most products are advertised for urine testing, not for assays using water solutions. This study presents an evaluation of four commercial FTS: Rapid Response from BTNX, Inc.; T-Dip Fentanyl (FTY) Urine Dip Cards obtained from Amazon.com ; Premier BioDip FYL10 from Premier Biotech Inc.; and MobileDetect Fentanyl strips from DetectaChem, Inc. Performance characteristics curves were used to compare the products' sensitivity, showing that all can reliably detect fentanyl in aqueous solutions at concentrations below 1 μg/mL, with some of the tests able to reliably detect the drug at 200 ng/mL. A stability study demonstrates the performance of all four FTS brands was only slightly affected after 30 days of storage at two extreme environmental conditions. Fentanyl-related substances are also evaluated using the Rapid Response FTS, which showed high cross-reactivity with para-fluorofentanyl and acetylfentanyl, but lower with ortho-chlorofentanyl, carfentanil, and 4-ANPP. Users should be aware that FTS may give false-negative results even when potentially dangerous levels of carfentanil are present. When testing other common drugs, adulterants, and diluents frequently encountered in seized tablets, concentration-dependent results were obtained and multiple instances of false positives were recorded.     

The expanding role of expert psychological evaluations and testimony in Hague child abduction litigation

Hague Convention cases are a growing niche in forensic assessments. These cases focus on returning children, or preventing their return, after international abductions, by one of the parents, has occurred. This article focuses on the legal underpinnings of the Hague Abduction Convention, the “affirmative defenses” that may be invoked to prevent a return order, including “grave risk of harm,” “mature objection”, and the “well settled defense.” The article will also focus on the increasing roles that forensic evaluators play in these matters, the distinction between the role of forensic experts in custody proceedings and Hague cases, and the inherent limitations present in these unique kinds of evaluations.