对生前预嘱相关问题的探讨

生前预嘱是指人在意识清楚时签署一份文书来事先表达出自己在生命末期的医疗意愿。本文针对生前预嘱的理解和适用中存在的相关问题作出探讨。本文以尊严死在我国的提出以及生前预嘱在我国的推广现状为基础,从法律的视角分析了生前预嘱的合法性和必要要件,并阐明了在目前的法律框架下生前预嘱还不是生效的法律文件,生前预嘱的落实还需要亲属的同意。本文借鉴其他国家和地区对生前预嘱的立法状况并结合我国的实际,提出了对于放弃治疗和尊严死的理解,以及针对医疗实践中放弃治疗的困惑提出了对放弃治疗应该严格遵循的原则。     

论遗嘱处分在财产继承中的优位效力——与法定继承相比较

相对于法定继承而言,遗嘱处分在财产继承中具有优先适用的效力。这种优位效力,不仅体现在继承立法上,而且也反映在具体的司法实务中;遗嘱处分的优位效力取决于私法自治及其支配下的遗嘱自由原则。     

对中国登记离婚制度的评价与反思

The Regulations on Marriage Registration promulgated in 2003 advocates the ideas for autonomy of private law, such as “autonomy of individual will”, “self responsibility” and “self-determination right”, ushering a new era of Chinese divorce registration system from supervision by employed institution to self responsibility, however, such issues also result in excessive freedom and insufficient restriction. In setting up the divorce registration system, therefore, it shall also be considered for the protection of disadvantaged parties and minor children so as to ensure the fairness and justice of law and the harmony and stability of society. Xia Yinlan, LL.D, is a professor and doctoral tutor and the dean of the School of International Studies in China University of Political Science and Law. She is also the vice chairman of Beijing Women’s Federation, the member of the executive committee of China Women’s Federation, the director of Marriage and Family Legal Research Institution under the supervision of China Law Society, the vice director of China Association of Marriage and Family Studies, the standing director of the International Family Law Society, the vice director of Beijing Women’s Law Research Institution. Her major academic interest covers women’s human rights, heritage law and family law. She was once a Fulbright visiting scholar in the United States and a legal expert in Macau Legal Affair Bureau. She’s one of the experts in drafting the P.R.C. Law on the Protection Of Women’s Rights (revised), the Marriage Law of P.R.C. (revised) and the Regulation of Marriage Registration of P.R.C., and she is still active in participating in the legislation activities of China. Prof. Xia wrote or co-wrote more than 20 monographs and textbooks, including American Modern Family and Marriage System, the Freedom and Restriction of Divorce, the Basic Framework Research on Domestic Violence Law, etc. In Chinese and foreign academic journals, more than 60 articles have been released, such as the study on property segmentation in divorce in China, the study on family violence under the framework of women’s rights, the comparison on the factual marriage in Macau and the Mainland of China.     

Mos Geometricus and the Common Law Mind: Interrogating Contract Theory

Euclidian theories have it that there exist one or a small number of apex principles from which the entire fasciculus of rules of contract law can be logically deduced. Two arguments are marshalled against the Euclidian project. First, that it has been unsuccessfully attempted before – in the form of the nineteenth century contract law treatise which emulated the civil lawyer's rationalistic model, mos geometricus – cautioning us against setting much store by its present reincarnation. Second, that the common law's methodology makes it resistant to this form of theorising. Euclidian theory presupposes a picture of rules on which: a) cases involve an application of logically prior rules; b) rules are reliably identifiable by different actors in the legal system; and c) rules normatively range over an indefinite spectrum of future cases. It will be argued that the common law defies this picture of rules thus rendering Euclidian theory analytically impossible.     

论委托代理授权不明时代理人的责任

在委托代理中,一旦出现授权范围、期限等内容不明确的情况,即可导致授权不明。在授权不明的情形下,课以代理人承担连带责任既不符合委托代理制度的基本法律构造,也不利于鼓励交易,影响代理制度功能的发挥。确定授权不明情形下代理人责任,需要先确定被代理人的授权范围以及代理行为的效力,在维护交易安全的前提下充分尊重被代理人的意思自治,由其事后确定授权范围。授权不明情形下代理人的代理行为可能构成有权代理、狭义的无权代理或者表见代理。     

运输毒品罪疑难问题研究

运输毒品是指在一个法域内 ,行为人以流通毒品为目的 ,认识到是毒品但不明知毒品的用途 ,采用各种方式流通毒品 ,并不根据自己的意志使毒品流通于不同的控制者。帮助吸毒者运输、转移毒品的行为可能构成非法持有毒品罪。行为人携带枪支运输毒品的行为应根据不同情况具体分析     

理性但不自由的良善意志——康德良善意志观的悖论解析

康德穿越了是与应当、认知与欲求的界限,强调人是目的的良善意志只以纯粹理性为根据,却不包含任何感性因素。结果在积极彰显不坑害人的素朴伦理常识的同时,不仅掏空了良善意志得以存在的事实性基础,而且也扭曲了其设定底线的规范性功能。最终在反讽性的自败悖论中,将这种自由意志变成了只服从必然义务,却难以从心所欲,因此也缺乏自由的抽象逻辑法则。     

对法本质认识的科学主义倾向之批判

由于因果律在根源上的证据不充分,因此以因果律为基础的科学方法对法律本质的认识存在问题.放弃因果律为前提,以追求最大盖然性为目标的科学方法,进入法学将会导致法学的实用主义,忽略人的价值;坚持因果律的科学方法,虽然可以很好地解决休谟难题,但必然会推导至彻底的决定论而丧失人类的自由意志,抹杀人的价值.法哲学研究应对理性与非理性同等尊重,关注客观性的同时,也关注个人的价值.     

Questioning and Pursuing: The Original Sin and Salvation in Dostoevsky’s Literature

The theoretical core of all religions, including Eastern Orthodox, is human being. No matter what changes occurred in history, paradigm, method and vocabulary on Dostoyevsky’s research in the last one hundred years, the Russian Eastern orthodox influenced and disseminated Dostoyevsky through religious doctrine and religious atmosphere, his thinking on human being was completed in the context of Eastern orthodox culture. What Dostoyevsky concerned about was sin and salvation in his whole life. God/man should keep a harmonious binary relationship. Human being has free will, but evil and sin are caused by irrational use of free will. In order to obtain the re-harmonious binary relationship, human being must envisage sin and suffering, and give themselves inner self punishment. The Man of god, Jesus Christ, is the perfect one who could save human beings. Dostoevsky responded original sin and redemption in the orthodox view.     

Free Will,Punishment, and the Burden of Proof

Justifying state punishment presents a difficulty for those who deny that human actions are free in the sense required by moral responsibility. The argument I make in this article, following work done by Double, Vilhauer, and Sehon, is that those who believe that human beings do sometimes act freely face exactly the same difficulty, for no current account of freedom has the sort of evidentiary support that condemning a person to punishment requires; no current account could meet even the most minimal burden of proof. Recourse to purely preventive methods, such as are proposed for a system of quarantine of dangerous individuals, seems undesirable because of the absence of limits under such a system, limits like the requirements of proportionality and guilt. That same objection holds as well against proposals of non-retributive punishment. The adoption of a system of punishment, understood retributively or non-retributively, does not preclude the state even in theory from also adopting a system of preventive measures. The answer that I suggest is a system of limited deprivations of freedom justified in much the way the doctrine of takings is justified, along with the specific exclusion of purely preventive methods for competent individuals.