八二宪法的人权逻辑——以三十年社会变迁为背景

以现实的社会条件为基础,1982年宪法形成了以发展性、时代性、中国性为核心的人权逻辑主线。随着三十年来我国社会的发展与变迁,1982年宪法的人权体系也在不断地扩充与演进,由对我国经济、社会发展最直接需要与成果的经济权利的凸显,到具有普适性人权价值的确认,再到经济、社会、文化权利即广义社会权体系的完善。在当下,公平享受发展成果,权利的平等保障是1982年宪法人权逻辑的最核心命题与最终极价值。     

雇主不当劳动行为的民事救济——基于我国和美国不当劳动行为救济制度之比较

我国《工会法》第52条规定的责令雇主承担不当劳动行为的民事责任,与美国《国家劳资关系法》第10(c)条的规定看起来很相似,相比之下,这一规范在美国劳动法的实践中很有效,在我国却极少被适用,解释方面也存在较大的分歧。美国是世界上最早创设不当劳动行为救济制度的国家,从《瓦格纳法》规定的雇主不当劳动行为的禁止规范及救济措施,到《塔夫托—哈特莱法》将适用对象扩大到工会和雇员,在雇用自由原则和劳资自治模式的背景下,其演变始终以保护雇员团结权的松紧程度和收放态度为线索。我国《工会法》现正处于第三次修改阶段,适时检讨第52条的解释和适用的障碍,还可以解决其与《劳动合同法》规范的竞合问题。     

古代罗马与古代儒家的抵抗权思想比较

在中国法治建设中需要积极恢复与倡导人权和抵抗权精神,进一步将各项法律中规定的抵抗权(抵制权)落实到位。在此方面,对罗马公法的抵抗权原理与儒家法文化传统的抵抗权精神进行比较研究具有重要的理论价值和现实意义,主要体现为人民主权论与民本民胜论、良心博爱论与自然人权论、道法天刑论与自然法思想、批判暴政与抵抗不义的比较研究。     

信用的权利化及其民法保护

在我国,信用权利化的提出有着特定的立法背景。通过对信用法律调整历史沿革的考察可以发现,信用的内涵是不断发展变化的,从最初关注主体在伦理道德方面信守承诺的情况,扩展到主体的综合经济能力。现代民法对信用的调整以社会对主体的信用评价为核心,信用作为社会对主体综合经济能力的评价,已非主体性要素,且已从“内在化的伦理价值”外化为“客体化的人格要素”,成为一种具有典型性、独立性的人格要素。因此,有必要也能够将信用权利化为具体的人格权,以确保民事主体获得客观公正的信用评价。     

公法与私法间的抉择——论我国民间文学艺术的知识产权保护

我国非物质文化遗产体系中的民间文学艺术保护工作正在全面展开,知识产权是否能够适用于民间文学艺术的保护仍存有争议.探析民间文艺著作权保护的缘由是厘清选择何种保护模式必要的举措.社会正义是民间文学艺术知识产权保护的价值取向.采用分类保护方式是民间文学艺术保护的优先选择.     

论著作人格权保护在美国的演绎

著作人格权作为一种非财产性权利,是作者享有的基于作品产生的人格利益.著作人格权制度是版权体系和作者权体系的分水岭所在.现行美国《版权法》第106条之2保护“某些作者的署名权及其保护作品完整权”,可是美国真的保护著作人格权吗？最初,美国延续版权体系的传统,无论是在版权法案中还是在司法实践中都不保护著作人格权制度.直到1988年,美国加入《伯尔尼公约》后,为了履行公约义务不得不在其版权法案中加入著作人格权的保护条款,但在司法实践中,美国仍遵循版权是财产权的理念,通过对作者和作品范围严格限定并未真正保护著作人格权.     

著作财产权客体结构中的使用行为——审视著作权法权利作用“焦点”的一个阐释进路

知识产权客体是一种多重构造体系,除涵盖知识产权处分客体(知识产权利益)以外,还存在知识产权支配客体(使用行为)与行为客体(抽象物)之分。就著作财产权而言,权利作用焦点的行为客体路径更多制造的是表述模糊的历史性概念,在权利边界的设定方式上难以限定,并不能一劳永逸地解决著作财产权的权利作用焦点困境。著作财产权的支配权能并非指向独占之作品,而是限制他人对作品的某些使用行为。支配客体(使用行为)路径始终贯穿于著作财产权的权利作用焦点思路当中。在反思著作财产权的支配客体,对使用行为进行定性与价值判断时,应避免时下合理使用原则、三步检验法传统规则的价值偏向与闭合趋势。使用行为的商业性和公开性(即公、私区分)作为合理使用原则、三步检验法等使用行为定性及价值判断基准仍具有重要的补充和参考作用。     

Post-conflict justice in divided democracies: the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India

Abstract

Official figures claim that almost 3000 people were killed, and many more injured or displaced, in four days of rioting aimed at the Sikh population of Delhi in late October and early November 1984 following the assassination of Indira Gandhi. This article analyses the efforts made to address the human rights violations that occurred. It argues that as a divided democracy, India has struggled to do justice to the victims, despite multiple commissions of inquiry, compensation schemes and a prime ministerial apology. It argues that this has occurred not simply because of challenges commonly faced by democracies dealing with similar incidents, but also because of the particular problems faced in a context in which we see continuity of rule by a political elite allegedly implicated in the abuse and in which there is acute concern for the survival of a fragile divided polity.     

Self-determination,group identity and the common will

ABSTRACT

Anna Stilz defends a political autonomy account of self-determination that, she argues, best explains our intuitions about why colonization, annexation and foreign occupation are wrong. These are wrong, on Stilz’s view, because they unilaterally coerce individuals living under those systems of government. I argue that Stilz does not show that her account of self-determination explains our intuitions about autonomy in these kinds of cases, because she does not have a separate argument for the value of belonging to particular political groups.     

The international rule of law

ABSTRACT

The rule of law is a moral ideal that protects distinctive legal values such as generality, equality before the law, the independence of courts, and due process rights. I argue that one of the main goals of an international rule of the law is the protection of individual and state autonomy from the arbitrary interference of international institutions, and that the best way to codify this protection is through constitutional rules restraining the reach of international law into the internal affairs of a state. State autonomy does not have any intrinsic value or moral status of its own. Its value is derivative, resulting from the role it plays as the most efficient means of protecting autonomy for individuals and groups. Therefore, the goal of protecting state autonomy form the encroachment of international law will have to be constrained by, and balanced against the more fundamental goal of an international rule of law, the protection of the autonomy of individual persons, best realized through the entrenchment of basic human rights.