Forfeiture Theory and Symmetrical Attackers

This article defends the following thesis: The Problem of Symmetrical Attackers does not falsify forfeiture theory. The theory asserts that except in the case where violence is necessary to avoid a catastrophe, only those who forfeit their rights are liable for defensive violence. The problem arises from the following sort of case, the Symmetrical Attacker Case, in which Al and Bob are doppelgangers. They both mistakenly but justifiably think that the other is about to attack them. They both respond with violence that is necessary and that they think is necessary to prevent the attack. The problem is that one person forfeits his right if and only if the second does not and that it appears to be impossible for both or neither to forfeit. The article argues that the forfeiture theory is not falsified by this problem because the problem is equally damaging to every plausible theory of permissible defensive violence.     

关于反对国际恐怖主义的若干国际法问题研究

反对恐怖主义的实践包含了很多值得研究的国际法问题 ,特别是以下问题 :恐怖主义的定义 ;反恐对传统国际性框架的影响 ;联合国在反恐中的法律地位 ,这些问题似乎显得格外突出 ,急需我们去思考和研究。     

中国内陆与香港正当防卫成立条件之比较

香港刑法中并没有正当防卫的概念,而合法使用武力中的防卫人身和防卫财产相当于我国内陆刑法中的正当防卫。两地有关正当防卫的成立条件既有相同之处,又存在着一些差异。     

浅论环境法中的正当防卫权

随着社会的发展 ,经济的进步及人身权利的自然增加 (如安宁权等的出现) ,人———人关系与人———自然关系具有了相当程度的相关性。作为调节这些关系的环境法 (有学者认为环境法是“公法手段干预私法领域的法”)常常注重于借助行政手段 ,而民事和刑事手段的使用则显得十分地僵硬与无效率。当今世界 ,环境法发展的方向是从公法到私法的回归 ,因而我国的环境法应确立相应的权利使民众能直接介入到环境纠纷中来 ,确认环境法中的正当防卫权是提高环境法社会实效的重要步骤。     

论我国正当防卫制度

我国正当防卫制度是一般防卫与特别防卫制度的结合。特别防卫制度是在法律规定的在针对正在进行的特定重大不法人身侵害等案件中的防卫人才有权实施的不受防卫限度、手段等限制的不承担防卫过当责任的一种特别防卫行为。我国防卫制度以一般防卫制度为基础,防卫过当的行为依然受一般防卫制度的调整。     

对区域性国际组织运用武力的法律控制浅析

区域组织运用武力在新的世纪中更引人关注。在联合国宪章体系下,区域组织运用武力有三种类型。其中,集体自卫和授权型运用武力对及时有效地反对地区霸权主义、维护国际和平与安全具有重要意义。但从国际关系实践来看,区域组织运用武力尤其是授权型运用武力存在着较多问题,只有对其实行有效控制,才能发挥区域组织在维护国际和平与安全方面的作用。     

社会功能评价在精神发育迟滞患者性侵害案中的应用

目的探讨社会功能水平在精神发育迟滞患者性自我防卫能力评定中的作用。方法对性侵害案中125例符合CCMD-3精神发育迟滞诊断标准的性受害者采用自编法医精神病学鉴定案例登记表收集一般资料,使用韦氏智力测试量表(WAIS-RC)、成人智残评定量表和功能大体量表(GAF)进行评定。结果不同等级的性自我防卫能力的患者在职业、婚姻、文化程度、性知识及生育史等方面有显著差异。成人智残评定量表、大体功能评定量表(GAF)、智商(IQ)和鉴定诊断的一致性(Kappa值)分为0.710、0.661、0.494,三者和性自我防卫能力的一致率分为0.538、0.472、0.316。结论不能仅用智商来确定精神发育迟滞患者的性自我防卫能力的水平,应充分重视社会功能在性自我防卫能力评定中的作用。     

Self-Defense and the Use of Force: Breaking the Rules, Making the Rules, or Both?

This article examines shifts in international law regarding the use of force—the jus ad bellum —that emerged in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and subsequently were invoked in part by the United States and United Kingdom to justify military intervention in Iraq. These shifts import some elasticity—in time, space, and place—into the preexisting legal understanding of self-defense. To be sure, the general consensus that supported the use of force in Afghanistan as a legitimate exercise of self-defense has diluted as the use of that force expanded into other theaters of operation. It is therefore unsurprising that considerable controversy envelops claims by some states that international law entitles them to use force in self-defense in a preemptory manner. This article explores the articulation of this and other justifications for the military intervention in Iraq. It also unpacks the difficult question whether these entitlements are constitutive of inchoate legal rules or simply deviations from the still operational old rules. Moreover, this article encourages scholars and students of international law and relations to consider why a movement is afoot to change the rules and how this affects the architecture of collective security. To facilitate this process of reflection, this article explores the policy implications of retaining the old rules or adopting the newly alleged rules.     

“当场击毙”行为的性质定位与制度规范

当场击毙行为属于警察职务行为之一种，对于当场击毙的条件、限度，我国现行法律并没有非常明确的规定，警察在实践中的适用标准存在很大差别，而且社会、学界以及媒体对其内涵的理解也不完全一致，导致在一些具体案例上引发了诸多争论。当场击毙行为，在性质定位上应属于正当防卫。但是，鉴于特殊适用场合及限制条件，应该单独归属于执法防卫当中，应该在立法中进一步明确当场击毙的实用条件，为其正确适用进行更好地制度设计。     

区分正当防卫与防卫过当的界限

刑法理论中的正当防卫是为排除社会危害性的行为,即指外表上似乎符合某种犯罪的犯罪构成,但实际上不仅不具有社会危害性,而且是对国家和人民有益的行为。但是,正当防卫有限度如何掌握,怎样才能使防卫人及司法机关做到和判定其行为确实。“不仅不具有社会危害性,而且还会对国家和人民有益”,这是一个很复杂的问题。为此,笔者试就正当防卫的构成,防卫行为由量变到质变为防卫过当及二者的区分界限作如下阐述：