The Concept of Appropriation and The Offence of Theft

The English law of theft is confusing and problematic in principle. Since the introduction of the Theft Act 1968 there has been inconsistency in the interpretation of appropriation as court and commentators have grappled with the intuition that appropriation must entail some subjective element and cannot be purely objective. Although subjectivity is traditionally associated with culpability rather than with conduct, it is argued that some acts can be subjective and yet factual and stand as causes to effects. Appropriation is such an act, its necessary and sufficient condition being a mindset, here termed proprietary subjectivity, on the part of the actor. It is argued that clarification of the concept of appropriation can help to resolve misperceived problems. Such clarification will also reveal other problems in the law of theft. Some tentative comments de lege ferenda are made suggesting how these problems can be addressed.     

抵押与质押之区分及中国物权法的选择

关于抵押与质押之区分 ,大陆法系主要有三种立法例。我国对抵押与质押关系的处理经历了由《民法通则》的“质”“押”合一到《担保法》的“质”“押”分立的变迁。《担保法》中采取多元化的标准区分抵押与质押 ,担保标的不同 ,抵押与质押的区分标准也各不相同 ,这就造成了若干理论上的困惑和一些实践中的不便。为此 ,有必要以民法典的编撰和物权法的制定为契机 ,对抵押与质押的区分进行重新思考和抉择 ,选取占有方式作为二者区分的标准     

宪法理解与宪政的建立和巩固——一种宪政经济学的视角

宪法之维系和宪政之建立与巩固,有赖于对宪法的复合式理解。宪法的内容构成、属性、层次以及宪政之建立与巩固过程,都是多元化的。宪政经济学视野下的契约宪法观、协作装置宪法观、惯例宪法观与自发生成的制度宪法观都把宪法简单化与单一化。要建立和巩固一个宪政体制,宪法的制定必须与某一共同体的惯例保持一致,同时,宪法必须具备稳定性、有效性、效率性。     

略论行政控权

行政权力的行使必须受到法律的制约,在法律设定的范围内进行。不受法律约束的权力会导致权力的滥用,形成权力腐败;不受法律约束的权力是人治的典型体现,与法治水火不容。为了使行政执法依法进行,行政相对方的权利尽量少受侵害,行政控权势在必行。从这个意义上说,控权是行政法实施的基础。     

治理理论的兴起与行政法的变迁

行政法是关于行政的法,公共行政的改革与发展必然对行政法产生影响,为行政法学提供新的研究课题。20世纪下半叶,治理理论的兴起,受到世界各国的广泛关注,行政主体的多元化和行政行为的非强制性被认为是治理理论两个明显的特征。以传统统治理论为基础形成的行政法不能解释行政主体的多元化和行政行为的非强制性现象,在治理理论的背景下,行政法面临着发展变迁的挑战。     

我国警检关系之协调模式探析

目前警检双方常常在刑事诉讼中发生冲突,以致有时不能准确高效地完成刑事诉讼的根本任务。为走出警检冲突的困境,有人提出检察引导侦查这一新型警检关系模式。     

走出自然权利认识的误区

在自然权利的问题上,存在着人类中心主义与非人类中心主义的尖锐对立,人们遵循着非此即彼的一种思维定势,认为二者水火不容,这是一个认识上的误区。即使作为坚守非人类中心主义立场的观察者也不得不承认发达的人类中心主义是实现自然权利的必由之路。贫穷不是非人类中心主义,只有在与自然和谐的基础上实现人类的生态化的富足,才有实现自然权利的可能。     

Competitive Liberalization,Competitive Imperialism,and Intellectual Property

Aggressive pursuit of free trade agreements (FTAs) and customs unions (CUs) by major and minor trading powers alike challenges the conventional wisdom in favor of such pursuit – competitive liberalization. An equally plausible explanation for an active bilateral and regional trade agreement policy, one which effectively de-emphasizes multilateralism, may be competitive imperialism. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is one area in which new provisions, going beyond multilateral rules, are being negotiated and written into FTAs and CUs. Such provisions may yield insights into which characterization of bilateralism and regionalism – competitive liberalization or competitive imperialism – is more apt. Rice Distinguished Professor, The University of Kansas, School of Law, Green Hall, 1535 West 15th Street, Lawrence, KS 66045-7577, USA. Tel. +1-785-8649224. Fax. +1-785-8645054. www.law.ku.edu. J.D., Harvard (1989); M.Sc., Oxford (1986); M.Sc., London School of Economics (1985); A.B., Duke (1984). Marshall Scholar (1984-86). Member, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Society for Asian Affairs, and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. Author, Modern GATT Law (Sweet & Maxwell 2005), International Trade Law: Theory and Practice (2nd ed. 2000, 3rd ed. forthcoming 2007-08), and Trade, Development, and Social Justice (Carolina Academic Press 2003). I am thankful to my Research Assistant, Mr. David R. Jackson (B.A., George Mason University, 1992; J.D. Class of 2007, University of Kansas), for his indispensable help on this work. I also am grateful to Dr. Mohammed El Said, University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN), for his consistent support and friendship, and for what he has taught and continues to teach me about international trade and intellectual property.     

Justice,Fairness, and World Ownership

It is a central tenet of most contemporarytheories of justice that the badly-off have aright to some of the resources of the well-off.In this paper, I take as my starting point twoprinciples of justice, to wit, the principle ofsufficiency, whereby individuals have a rightto the material resources they need in order tolead a decent life, and the principle ofautonomy, whereby once everybody has such alife, individuals should be allowed to pursuetheir conception of the good, and to enjoy thefruits of their labour in pursuit of suchconception. I also endorse the value offairness, whereby the right person orinstitution makes the decision as to whether tobring about justice.I show that justice and fairness can besatisfied only if we all enjoy a combination ofprivate and collective rights over the world.In making that case, I shall argue that the setof ownership rights I advocate differs fromreadily available conceptions of restrictedprivate ownership in two important respects.First, it is such that in some circumstances,two individuals or more can have control rightsover the same property at the same time, not,as is standardly the case in legal systems, bycontracting with one another (through gifts andjoint purchase), but simply on grounds ofjustice. Second, it allows that, if necessary,property-owners be expropriated from theirproperty without compensation.     

法律、秩序与自由——与哈耶克的边界之旅

法律并非全能由人的理性设计与安排。理性是分裂的、忧郁的、恐惧的 ,也是自由的。我们的行为乃是在一种无知的情境中展开的 ,秩序与法律在无知中生成。自生自发秩序 (民间法 )与人造秩序 (国家法 )两者的生发方式、被遵从方式以及目的指涉与对象指向均不同 ,两者的冲突是绝对的。法律无力引导道德 ,法律只是自由的保护神 ,而非自由之敌。