State borders as defining lines of justice: why the right to exclude cannot be justified

This paper seeks to answer the question of what we, according to justice, owe to immigrants. The answer to this normative question is extracted by providing an analysis of Michael Blake’s jurisdictional theory presented in Immigration, Jurisdiction, and Exclusion and elaborated upon in other articles in which he argues for states’ right to exclude immigrants based on states’ jurisdictional nature. I regard this theory as unjustified since it rests on a weak basis, which is further problematised by weighing the moral claims of residents above those of immigrants. In this way, my criticism serves to provide argumentative support in a negative manner for weighing the moral claims of immigrants on an equal footing with those of residents.     

人权基本概念的演变与人权发展历程

人权是我们这个时代的共同话语,同时也是一个深刻、敏感并极富争议性的论题,其中人权概念就是一个必须认真对待的基本问题。现代人权概念是一个历时性与共时性相互作用的产物。在人类的人权发展史上,曾先后出现过人权的几个基本概念,厘清这些概念将有助于我们理解人权概念本身的演变及其内涵与外延的丰富与发展过程。它们从某个角度记载了人权事业发展的曲折艰难历程和人类在人权事业上不断进步的足迹。     

捍卫法条主义

在中国语境中,法条主义俨然是一个充满＂贬义＂指称的＂稻草人＂概念,但这一指称概念是由反法条主义在一种＂自我想象性＂的立场上＂型塑＂出来的。在西方,人们在对待法条主义的＂是＂与＂非＂问题上从来就没有达成过任何＂共识性＂的认识。在当下的中国,尽管人们都在极力地批判法条主义,但这种处于＂穷途末路＂的法条主义却是需要我们予以坚决捍卫的。法条主义所处的＂穷途末路＂困境恰恰说明了中国法律学研究的贫困,努力推进对中国＂法条＂的法律学研究是中国法条主义肩负的社会责任。     

Legal jurisdiction over malware-related crimes: From theories of jurisdiction to solid practical application

As far as malware-related crimes are concerned, extra territorial jurisdiction and the law of extradition need one another to work perfectly, but there has never been a standard universal rule governing them. While Universality Principle can be argued to be the most ideal solution to the problem, it is opposed by the supporters of the notion of self-regulation of the internet, not to mention it lacks the required universal support. Thus the determination of the issues has to be based on the analysis of existing measures of practical applications.     

United States' and Australian principles on internet jurisdiction: A case for Australia to consider United States' hegemony on jurisdiction

The United States and Australia have been facing the issue of internet jurisdiction. The United States is an epitome of a country that has considered the challenges posed by the internet to the traditional law. It has developed its own tests to help resolve the issue, which have evolved over time and in comparison with other jurisdictions, and it has been successful. Conversely, the Australian legal system is in a stage of infancy regarding such challenges and has developed its own approach. This paper focuses on the anomalies between the United States' and Australian principles or approaches to internet jurisdiction by analysing and discussing the three leading cases that are benchmarks in the respective jurisdictions. Finding the fundamental difference between the two approaches, the paper elucidates the United States hegemony on internet jurisdiction by comparing the shortcomings of the respective cases. Finally, this paper makes a case for the Australian courts to consider an approach based on the one practised by the United States courts to tackle the ever-evolving issue of internet jurisdiction.     

国际刑事法院管辖权探究——以利比亚情势为视角

在利比亚战争期间,国际刑事法院对卡扎菲等人发出逮捕令,对卡扎菲政权的灭亡以及被追捕的有关人的生命、自由产生巨大影响。利比亚战争虽然已经结束,但国际刑事法院的各项诉讼活动仍在进行。通过利比亚战争期间国际刑事法院的一系列活动,可以看出国际刑事法院的管辖权依据、行使的方式和结构,同时也证明了国际刑事法院在处理重大国际事件,特别是国际罪行中的重要性、权威性、公正性和独立性。     

管辖权的确定对法律适用的影响

在国际私法领域,管辖固定权的确定和法律适用是不容忽视的两大重要问题。文章论述了管辖权的确定对民事诉讼和不动产物权在法律适用中的影响和作用。反致制度和公共秩序保留制度在国际私法中的运用,旨在阐明管辖权的确定对管辖法院在适用法律或是选择法律时所具有的影响。     

论民事二审程序的审判范围

审判范围乃是人民法院在上诉审程序中对民事案件行使上诉审判权的权力界限，这个范围是由诉权和审判权交互作用划定而成的。具体来说，模式论、制度论、结构论、原则论都属于确定二审审判范围的论题。其中原则论、模式论、制度论从定性和定量两个角度确定了二审审判范围的横向内容，也就是划定了二审审判范围的宽度，结构论则从定量的视角确定了二审审判范围的纵向内容，也就是划定了二审审判范围的深度。它们的有机结合，共同综合作用，二审审判范围得到最终确定。     

论卢旺达国际刑事法庭的管辖权

卢旺达国际刑事法庭的管辖权包括五类:其属地管辖权涵盖卢旺达及其邻国;其属人管辖权限于自然人;其属事管辖权包含种族灭绝罪、反人道罪和战争罪;其属时管辖权仅限于1994年度发生的犯罪,遭到卢旺达政府的批评;其并行管辖权和优先管辖权则与前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭规定的同名管辖权有着质的区别。     

试论行政诉讼级别管辖制度的完善

按照行政诉讼法级别管辖的规定,我国绝大多数的行政案件都由基层人民法院管辖。这种级别管辖制度的设置会导致司法不公正、司法资源的闲置和浪费、公民的诉权得不到保障和行政职权被滥用等问题。解决以上问题的根本方法是提高一审案件的管辖级别,一审案件由中级人民法院管辖,取消基层人民法院对行政案件的管辖权;相应调整高级人民法院和最高人民法院的审理范围;增设巡回审判机关,以解决对当事人造成的不便;建立＂异地交叉审理制度＂,作为对改革后的级别管辖制度的补充。