浅议我国民间借贷的法律规制

民间借贷作为我国正规金融借贷的一种必要补充,有其存在的合理性。由于缺乏相应的法律规范、有效的外部监管和完善的社会信用体系,民间借贷市场还存在诸多风险和不规范之处。必须通过完善立法、加强监管、强化社会信用体系建设等使其规范化、健康化发展。     

刑法中法律拟制应遵循的特定立法程序

由于法律拟制确实会产生一定的“威胁”而较难被社会公众所认同,因而为了应对和防范这种“威胁”并加强其被认同感,应当在一般刑法条款的立法程序之外再设置一些特定立法程序来规范法律拟制技术的运用或法律拟制条款的设置;1.设置包括立法听证会和立法论证会在内的特定的公众参与程序;2.设置法律拟制的立法说明程序;3.设置法律拟制的审查、解释及废止程序.     

论公司人格否认制度适用情形标准化及路径选择

公司人格否认制度适用情形是人民法院审理人格否认案件并做出最终裁决所依据的法律标准,而我国目前立法、司法解释和《九民纪要》所确认的适用情形较为原则和片面,缺乏系统性、规范性与逻辑性,引发司法适用难题。适用情形标准化是解决上述问题并实现"同案同判"的关键。本文对主要适用情形进行梳理和分析,试图厘清其逻辑关系,细化适用条件,并建议通过立法、修法或出台司法解释等途径,围绕人格否认制度核心价值,构建适用情形标准化体系,为人民法院审理人格否认案件提供统一法律适用标准。     

Does Ambivalent Sexism Influence Verdicts for Heterosexual and Homosexual Defendants in a Self-Defense Case?

The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the “battered person syndrome”, and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed. Study findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS), Jacksonville, Florida (March, 2008).     

Heir, Celebrity, Martyr, Monster: Legal and Political Legitimacy in Shakespeare and Beyond

The seventeenth century placed Western political thought on a path increasingly concerned with ascertaining the legitimacy of a determinate individual, parliamentary or popular sovereign. As early as Shakespeare, however, a parallel literary tradition serves not to systematise, but to problematise the discourses used to assert the legitimacy with which control over law and government is exercised. This article examines discourses of legal and political legitimacy spawned in early modernity. It is argued that basic notions of ‘right’, ‘duty’, ‘justice’ and ‘power’ (corresponding, in their more vivid manifestations, to categories of ‘heir’, ‘celebrity’, ‘martyr’ and ‘monster’) combine in discrete, but always encumbered ways, to generate a variety of legitimating discourses. Whilst transcendentalist versions of those discourses begin to wane, their secular analogues acquire steadily greater force. In addition to the Shakespearean histories, works of John Milton, Pierre Corneille, Jean Racine, Friedrich Schiller and Richard Wagner are examined, along with some more contemporary or ironic renderings.

技术标准垄断的法律控制

在知识经济条件下知识产权对经济生活的作用日益凸显,并在高新技术的快速发展中不断得以扩张与强化,其与技术标准结合所形成的技术标准垄断,对市场竞争的危害日益严重,迫切需要反垄断法予以规制。但产生并发展于工业经济时代的反垄断法并无直接针对技术标准垄断的具体规则,导致法律适用中的严重困惑与障碍,难以适应新条件下控制技术标准垄断的要求。2007年8月我国颁布的《反垄断法》虽然规定作为知识产权垄断表现形式之一的技术标准垄断"应受"该法规制,但同样未能解决"如何"规制的问题。因此,在反垄断法的现有制度体系中构建新的控制技术标准垄断的制度规则,是解决这一问题的重要途径。该制度规则概括讲主要包括两大部分内容:一是对技术标准中的知识产权人规定特别的反垄断义务;二是对技术标准制定与实施中的垄断行为予以反垄断审查与惩处。     

论对犯罪收益的民事没收

民事没收是一种对物不对人的制裁措施,它所针对的是一类特殊的财物,即犯罪收益。民事没收可以在没有刑事案件的情况下没收财产,即便被告人已经死亡或者在逃,甚至即便还不知晓谁实施了违法行为。民事没收适用民事诉讼的"谁主张谁举证"原则,要求那些声称对财物享有合法权利的人员承担相应的证明责任,并且只要求法官"根据优势证据"的标准证明裁断有关财产是否应被没收。我国应当借鉴外国的民事没收制度以及相关的成功经验,尽快建立针对犯罪所得或者违法行为收益的、独立的财产没收制度。     

试论动物法律主体地位之否定

1990年的《德国民法典》增添了“动物不是物”一语,从而引发了有关动物民事法律地位的讨论。生态伦理学的非人类中心论者将人之间的伦理关系扩展到人与动物之间,主张给予动物以法律主体地位。部分民法学者则结合民事主体法的扩展史得出了可以赋予动物以法律主体地位的结论。但事实上,动物并不符合伦理主体的要求。法律只能是人的法律,无法给动物提供法律主体地位。动物不可能成为民事法律主体,只能成为民事法律的客体。     

从司法解释的作用看我国法律适用体系的重构

抽象的法律规范与具体的案件事实之间永远存在着沟壑,法律适用才是法律真正生命意义所在。由于种种原因,许多法律条文过于原则、抽象甚至含糊,给法院适用法律造成了很大的困难。大量司法解释不仅填补了法律漏洞,而且为法官裁判案件提供了更为具体、明确的规则依据。因此,要从整体协调的角度,正视和反思包括司法解释在内的我国法律适用体系的现状,理顺和重构我国法律适用体系,重塑司法权威和司法公信力,实现公正与效率。