医疗纠纷法医学鉴定质量评价模型的建立

目的建立医疗纠纷法医学鉴定质量评价模型。方法收集同济医学院法医学系近10年410例涉及医疗纠纷的法医学鉴定的案例,对影响医疗纠纷法医学鉴定质量的10个关键指标,运用SAS软件进行了主成分分析。结果通过统计学分析,筛选出6个能反映所有原指标变量主要信息的主成分,并依此结果推算出评价法医学系医疗纠纷的鉴定质量评价模型。结论在建立“医疗纠纷鉴定质量管理体系”时,应按影响鉴定质量的主成分设计相应的对策。     

顶空气相色谱内标法测定人血中乙醇含量的不确定度评定

目的建立顶空气相色谱内标法测定人血中乙醇含量的不确定度评定的方法。方法结合顸空法乙醇含量测定的全部过程,假设传播系数为1,则对产生不确定度的各分量因子进行分析计算与合成。结果不确定度因素的来源主要包含样品检测时产生的误差值、检测仪器的精密度、使用标准物质的标示值的不确定度和使用的量器、容量器皿等的不确定度。结论本评定方法得出检测的最大误差来自于两个平行样品检测时所产生的误差值。     

对民法本位的新审思——从民法基本原则及价值谈起

民法基本原则含效力贯穿于民法始终的根本准则及具有一定宣示价值的特别规则。公平原则是民法基本原则中的核心原则。近、现代民法价值取向的特征分别是安定性和妥当性,它们的主要价值取向都是公平和秩序。民法本位是民法的根本指归。近、现民法本位未变,即都是权利本位、个人本位。个人本位比权利本住更为本原,称其为民为本位,则更确切。可在广义社会法下的经济法等和其它行政法中确定社会本位乃至国家本位。民法本位是民法的出发点,民法价值是民法的归结点,均蕴含并体现在民法基本原则中。     

量刑的理论与实践研究——量刑基准的确立

同样性质、同样情节、同样后果的犯罪,受到不同的处罚,必然会引起人们对法律公正的怀疑,动摇人们对法律的信仰和信心.量刑的公正应当体现在不同个案的相互比较中.刑法规定的法定量刑情节需要一个参照基准,应在假定不考虑犯罪人的具体法定量刑情节的基础上,考虑犯罪人所有的与犯罪有关的全部犯罪细节包括酌定情节,抽象地确定这一犯罪应当适用的基准刑罚,再在此基础上,考虑量刑的法定情节,对基准刑罚进行适当的调整.目前需要做的工作是在立法方面进一步细化法定刑范围,通过司法解释进一步明确量刑标准,承认案例的指导作用.     

论保险人说明义务的履行方式与标准——以对我国司法实务的考察为中心

保险人说明义务的履行方式与标准因免责条款与其余一般条款而存在差别,其中,保险人对免责条款的说明义务可分解为提醒义务与主动解释义务。而对一般条款的说明义务仅限于被动的解释义务。保险人并不承担证明投保人已正确理解保险条款的义务。     

民法本位研究创新构思

有必要对民法本位、价值、原则等,从经济、社会、政治、文化、人性、理论、实定法等层面做一系统研究,打通它们之间的关系,建立起较为完备的民法元理论或民法哲学的体系基础。对民法本位及价值和原则进行个别的和联系的多层面研究,于民法原理的丰富和发展有着重要的理论意义。从立法实践上看,编制民法典,当先定好民法的本位及由其决定的价值取向和基本原则,以之为前提,来架构民法典的体系,定出具体规范。于适法和守法实践来看,了解民法本位及其与民法价值和原则的多层面密切关系,把握民法的宗旨和精神,更能准确执法,自觉地透过民法精神规约民事行为。历时与共时、理论与实践多元综合分析研究民法本位及相关问题。     

EU GDPR or APEC CBPR? A comparative analysis of the approach of the EU and APEC to cross border data transfers and protection of personal data in the IoT era

This article examines the two major international data transfer schemes in existence today – the European Union (EU) model which at present is effectively the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Cross Border Privacy Rules system (CBPR), in the context of the Internet of Things (IoT).While IoT data ostensibly relates to things i.e. products and services, it impacts individuals and their data protection and privacy rights, and raises compliance issues for corporations especially in relation to international data flows. The GDPR regulates the processing of personal data of individuals who are EU data subjects including cross border data transfers. As an EU Regulation, the GDPR applies directly as law to EU member nations. The GDPR also has extensive extraterritorial provisions that apply to processing of personal data outside the EU regardless of place of incorporation and geographical area of operation of the data controller/ processor. There are a number of ways that the GDPR enables lawful international transfer of personal data including schemes that are broadly similar to APEC CBPR.APEC CBPR is the other major regional framework regulating transfer of personal data between APEC member nations. It is essentially a voluntary accountability scheme that initially requires acceptance at country level, followed by independent certification by an accountability agent of the organization wishing to join the scheme. APEC CBPR is viewed by many in the United States of America (US) as preferable to the EU approach because CBPR is considered more conducive to business than its counterpart schemes under the GDPR, and therefore is regarded as the scheme most likely to prevail.While there are broad areas of similarity between the EU and APEC approaches to data protection in the context of cross border data transfer, there are also substantial differences. This paper considers the similarities and major differences, and the overall suitability of the two models for the era of the Internet of Things (IoT) in which large amounts of personal data are processed on an on-going basis from connected devices around the world. This is the first time the APEC and GDPR cross-border data schemes have been compared in this way. The paper concludes with the author expressing a view as to which scheme is likely to set the global standard.     

论监察案件的证据标准——以刑事诉讼证据为参照

监察证据无需转化便可直接获得刑事诉讼证据资格,但作为职务犯罪定案的根据,必须具备刑事诉讼证据的形式条件和实质条件。监察机关的调查权与刑事侦查权具有相同的性质和功能,监察机关调查取证虽然不直接适用刑事诉讼法,但必须参照刑事诉讼法的侦查取证规则。为保障调查取证的合法性,应当对调查活动进行合理规制,对于非法获取的证据应当按照刑事诉讼法及相关司法解释确定的非法证据排除规则予以排除。监察机关调查终结的案件,应当达到刑事侦查终结的证明标准,应当低于法院判决有罪的标准,但不能比其他普通刑事案件的证明标准更高。     

证明标准建构的虚幻与现实——从考察两大法系国家的证明标准历史出发

民事诉讼证明标准是衡量法官形成内心确信的尺度.本文通过对证明标准在两大法系国家的统一和分离历史的考察,探讨不同法系确立不同的民事诉讼证明标准的原因,进而在借鉴国外经验的基础上构建我国的民事诉讼证明标准.     

平等与合理差别——兼论统一人身损害赔偿标准立法

人身损害赔偿标准的多重性,是我国人身损害赔偿立法的基本特点。科学、合理的赔偿标准,是人身损害赔偿制度科学性的重要体现。在确定具体的赔偿标准时,应在承认合理差别的基础上追求法律规则的平等性与公正性。