从法条的公司法到实践的公司法

人们对公司法规范结构的不同分类,其本质都是在讨论一个问题,即当事人的意思在适用公司法规范中有多大空间。并且,任何对公司法规范结构的讨论,都试图在解决公司法适用中的自由与强制的协调。违反公司法强制性规范并不当然使违反行为无效。是否使违反行为无效,应取决于强制性规范的具体性质与立法目的。讨论公司章程对公司法适用的影响时,应该注意公司章程到底有多大的自由空间。公司章程可以根据本公司的特点和特殊要求,规定不同于或不完全同于公司法的规则。而这些规则,可以优先适用于法律、行政法规,包括公司法的规定。     

两大法系非法证据排除规则比较研究

排除非法证据是保障被告人人权,维护司法公正的一项重要原则。由于法律文化传统的不同以及特定时期控制犯罪与保护人权的需要,不同法系之间以及同一法系不同国家之间有关这一问题的诉讼理论和具体对策往往存在着许多差异。对两大法系非法证据排除规则的发展历史及有关法律规定进行了比较和研究,目的在于为确立我国的非法证据排除规则提供借鉴。     

浅析由WTO贸易与环境争端所引发的理论争议

有关贸易与环境争端在GATT法律体系内很难找到具体适用的规则,因此GATT曾被环保主义者称作没有规则的天堂。WTO成立后,为解决贸易与环境争端,出现了对WTO协定作普通法式解释的现象。本文认为这种解释方法符合客观要求,我国政府应顺应国际环保形势发展的总体需要,支持用普通法的方式解释WTO贸易与环境的相关法律规定。     

自由心证制度所面临的两大挑战

在现代大陆法系诉讼中 ,自由心证是事实认定的基石。虽然学界也提出了这种“自由”并非是绝对的 ,但是 ,主要是从“自由心证”在客观上必然受到“可接受性”标准限制 ,来讨论其“自由”的相对性。这似显不足。本文拟从程序运作的角度来探讨自由心证在实践层面上所面临的两大挑战 :一个来自科技证据的广泛应用 ;另一个是排除规则的实施。注意到这两个挑战 ,对中国的司法改革中证据制度的设计有一定的启示。     

Evidence-informed or value-based? exploring the scrutiny of legislation in the UK Parliament

This article argues that three types of factor – process, subject and political circumstance – are likely to affect the extent to which claims of evidence are made during legislative scrutiny. It draws upon case studies of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Academies Act 2010 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, utilising interviews with those involved and information from Hansard. The article concludes that these cases highlight that while there might be potential benefits from a yet more robust legislative scrutiny process, including greater use of pre-legislative scrutiny and the ability of public bill committees to take evidence from a wider range of witnesses and on all bills, subject and political factors would be likely to mean that the use of claims of evidence would continue to vary widely.     

Keeping the Family Together: Why New York Must Amend Evidence Rules to Protect a Parent's Right to be a Parent

In New York, hearsay statements made by children may be admissible in a child protective proceeding. Under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, an out‐of‐court statement only requires corroboration to support the statement's reliability. The Family Court has the choice to determine what evidence will be sufficient for corroboration. In comparison to other statutes from different states, New York's statute is very broad. This Note proposes amending the current evidence statute under Article 10 of the Family Court Act to strengthen the standard for admitting hearsay statements in child protective proceedings.     

台湾地区共犯口供的证据规则及其启示

广义上的共犯口供问题包括未共同审理的共犯的口供问题,以及在同一程序中审理的共犯或其它牵连案件被告人等共同被告的口供问题。共犯及共同被告口供问题在台湾地区的证据法上经历了一个从模糊到逐步清晰的发展时期。在台湾地区现行的刑事诉讼制度中,共犯口供在其他被告的案件中作为证人证言,并要求补强证据;对于共同被告则可经程序分离而进行证人的证据调查程序,并且其口供同样也需要补强证据。对于共犯及共同被告口供的处理方式体现出台湾地区对严格证明法则的重视,对被告人程序权利保障的加强,也反映出口供在证据体系中地位的降低,但依然存在一些难题未能解决。台湾地区共犯及共同被告口供的证据规则能给大陆带来一些有益的启示。     

The Strasbourg Court and Indirect Race Discrimination: Going Beyond the Education Domain

Prohibiting indirect discrimination has been hailed as guaranteeing substantive equality by addressing issues of structural discrimination and inequalities in a way that direct discrimination cannot and will not. However, Article 14, the ECHR's non‐discrimination provision, does not distinguish between direct and indirect discrimination. Only in 2007 the European Court of Human Rights explicitly included the notion of indirect (race) discrimination under Article 14 in DH and Others v Czech Republic, its famous judgment on Roma education segregation. Since then it has applied the prohibition of indirect race discrimination in a limited manner to similar education cases. However, in its recent Grand Chamber decision, Biao v Denmark, the Strasbourg Court started clarifying some unsolved issues in the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination in its case law and finally applied the concept to the much broader area of immigration and citizenship.     

论受贿犯罪推定规则的确立

受贿犯罪推定认定是解决司法实务中"一对一"问题的有效路径.受贿犯罪推定规则的内容至少应当包括适用范围的特定性、适用条件的限定性与适用结论的可反驳性三个方面.     

论仲裁规则的性质及其与仲裁法之间的关系

仲裁规则是规定如何通过仲裁的方法解决当事人之间争议的程序性规则。仲裁适用的规则既可以由当事人约定,也可以由仲裁机构或者相关的国际经济贸易组织制定。仲裁规则的本质是契约性,仅在当事人选择适用的情况下对相关当事人或者仲裁机构(庭)具有法律上的拘束力。当事人也可在不违反相关国家有关强制性法律规则的情况下对他们选择适用的仲裁规则进行修订。国家的仲裁法所规范的是在该国境内进行的一切仲裁活动,无须当事人对此做出选择。仲裁法还是仲裁规则的重要补充。如果当事人或者仲裁规则未能对争议事项作出规定或规定不明确的,可以通过相关国家的国内仲裁立法加以补充与完善。由于仲裁规则与仲裁法在本质上的不同,决定了它们在适应范围和法律效力上的不同。