依法参与：青少年权益保障的新视角

青少年权益保障与依法参与在青少年成长发展过程中皆不可或缺，21世纪以来，人们日益认识到青少年权益保障与依法参与的内在关联，二者相辅相成，相得益彰。在科学发展观的构架下，青少年权益保障必须实现解读立场的转化，秉承“以人为本”的理念，突出青少年自身权益保障的主体性地位，而青少年依法参与恰是当前青少年权益保障的新视角。     

对版权保护扩张趋势的反思

为推介中国人民大学法学院博士培养成果,搭建论文品评乃至学术评价之平台,《法学家》专辟博文精萃一栏。该栏目由两部分组成:其一是论文要旨,由博文作者对其博士论文进行全面系统而重点突出的介绍,一般宜包括如下要素:论文的体系架构;论文每章节的主要内容;论文的主要特点;论文的主要创新和不足;论文所研究领域的课题展望。其二是论文评议,可以是答辩委员会的论文审查意见,或者评审专家的点评,具体宜包括如下要素:对论文的总体评价;对论文的体系及各章节的评价;对论文创新的评价;指出论文的不足以及进一步完善的方向。敬请关注并提出宝贵建议。     

Trámite legal para el pago de obligaciones pecuniarias impuestas al estado colombiano en decisiones sobre derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario

This article is one of the research results of the project “Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case law on Latin American High Courts rulings. Study about Brazil, Mexico and Colombia”. The author indicates how the Colombian State was seen compelled to send off a Law in the year 1996, through which, receiving a special procedure, he is included inside his internal code the guarantee of not repetition as mechanism of application of the decisions in matter of human rights and international human law in said country.     

同意错误探析

个体自主权是人性尊严的重要组成部分,一个人有权选择自己所要成为的状态。法秩序应当允许公民根据自己的价值观来决定和支配个人生活,这也是评价一国人权发展程度的重要标准。被害人同意作为一种超法规违法阻却事由牵涉到诸多刑法理论问题,并成为国家刑罚权与个人自治权相互冲突协调的缓冲地带。其中,同意错误问题更是此理论的核心,然而就涉及同意错误的认定问题,在学术理论与司法实践中没有统一标准。事实上,随着经济的发展与同意行为适用领域的扩展,法益关系错误说的适用范围存在局限性,而＂规范性自律说＂与＂法益处分自由说＂对其作出了补充和完善。     

Protección de los recursos genéticos de los pueblos indígenas en los sistemas universal e interamericano de derechos humanos

This article shows the current state of protection of genetic resources of indigenous peoples in the context of international human rights. The analysis is justified because international law, regional and international on access to genetic resources of indigenous peoples is insufficient, poor and in some cases, nonexistent. The protection of genetic resources in relation to indigenous peoples has special connotations according to its own system of human rights of these peoples, so that it seeks to investigate whether international law of human rights takes into account these ethnic particularities. In this sense, a characterization of universal and inter-American system related to genetic resources in order to identify gaps and challenges of these systems.     

“偶然”还是“必然”?——从青年劳工维权者的从业路径看草根维权力量的兴起

对农民工的权利保护,是当下最受关注的社会问题之一,也是近来学术讨论的热点所在。已有研究中的大部分都将关注点集中在维权组织的产生与运作过程,但对于个体的劳工维权者却少有问津。笔者通过分析个体维权者的生命史,发现他们自认为是"偶然"的从业路径,实质上充满了由体制和制度带来的必然性,同时这些结构性因素也持续塑造着他们的维权行动。     

Pre-Trial Defence Rights and the Fair Use of Eyewitness Identification Procedures

This paper sets out the normative basis of a claim to procedural rights concerning the fair use of eyewitness identification procedures. It is argued that there are two aspects to suspects' procedural rights. The first aims to secure an opportunity for the suspect to participate in procedures where doing so might result in exculpatory evidence (a participatory right). The second is the state's obligation to take reasonable measures to prevent wrongful conviction on the basis of mistaken identification by providing the suspect with a satisfactory degree of procedural accuracy (a protective right). This normative analysis provides the basis of a claim that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a suspect with similar rights. The final part of the paper considers whether domestic procedure is compatible with these putative rights, and whether it could be said to provide an effective remedy if they were to be breached.     

Justifying Punishment: A Response to Douglas Husak

In ‘Why Criminal Law: A Question of Content?’, Douglas Husak argues that an analysis of the justifiability of the criminal law depends upon an analysis of the justifiability of state punishment. According to Husak, an adequate justification of state punishment both must show why the state is permitted to infringe valuable rights such as the right not to be punished and must respond to two distinct groups of persons who may demand a justification for the imposition of punishment, namely, individuals subjected to punishment and the society asked to support the institution of punishment. In this discussion, I analyse Husak’s account of the right not to be punished with an eye to showing that the parameters of that right do not extend to the cases that would make it controversial. I also consider two other distinct groups of persons who have equal standing to alleged offenders and society to demand justification for the imposition of state punishment, namely, direct victims of crimes and criminal justice officials.