论刑事和解中的证明责任和证明标准

刑事和解与刑事审判程序不同,它更加重视当事人双方自由选择的意愿,不能忽视证明责任和证明标准这两个证据法中的基本问题。在实践占主导地位的司法调解模式下的刑事和解作为审判前程序．由检察机关主持,包含加害方自愿认罪和双方达成赔偿协议两个阶段,蕴含着刑事和民事两种不同的证明对象、证明责任和证明标准。应当参照刑事诉讼和民事诉讼的规则．明确刑事和解程序中的证明责任主体、分配规则以及不同阶段的证明标准,这有利于刑事和解顺利开展,达到案结事了。     

论中国在北极治理中的国际责任及其践行路径

在全球气候变暖和北极冰融的影响下,北极治理逐渐成为国际社会关注的热点话题。中国作为地理上的近北极国家以及《联合国海洋法公约》等国际公约的缔约国,拥有参与北极治理的合法合理依据,承担着维护北极治理规范、推动北极资源绿色和可持续开发、保护北极自然生态环境等国际责任。在未来一段时期,中国在国内应该完善涉及北极事务的国内规制,推动北极科学考察的国际合作,协调国内科学家群体参与北极理事会工作组的科学评估工作,并着重构建中国北极国际责任话语体系。     

刑法第395条第1款中的“说明来源”性质——兼论巨额财产来源不明罪的证明责任

学术界对巨额财产来源不明罪证明责任问题的分歧根源，在于对实体法规定的把握不确，其焦点是如何理解和把握刑法第395条第1款规定的“说明来源”性质。该款前半段是立法者为拥有“差额巨大财产”的国家工作人员创设一项实体性行政义务——即“说明来源”，该义务同时也作为后半段规定的巨额财产来源不明罪客观行为（不作为）中的前提性作为义务，前、后半段一起构成巨额财产来源不明罪的完整罪状和罪刑规范。而“不能说明其来源是合法的”是成立巨额财产来源不明罪基础的客观行为要件，在刑事诉讼中是“被证明的对象”，而不是“对象的自我证明”。该行为要件不产生任何“特别”的刑事诉讼程序上的含义和不产生证明责任“例外”分配的效果，巨额财产来源不明罪的证明责任仍由控方承担。     

Arresting Developments? Restricting the Enforcement of the UK's Universal Jurisdiction Provisions

Recently introduced legislative amendments limit the issue of arrest warrants on the application of a private prosecutor where jurisdiction is based on universal jurisdiction. The amendments addressed a ‘loophole’ in English law whereby a private prosecutor could seek and be granted an arrest warrant, generally in respect of an individual on a short term visit to the UK, even though the consent of the Attorney General would be required for the prosecution to continue. This article argues that these amendments addressed legitimate evidentiary and diplomatic relations concerns, are consistent with the UK's international obligations, and are in line with the UK's policy on the exercise of universal jurisdiction and with international trends. However, given the limited category of persons who were subject to such arrest warrants under the previous law and the practice of the UK concerning special missions, the amendments may be of limited practical significance.     

论民事赔偿优先原则

确立民事赔偿优先原则 ,具有法律依据和理论依据 ,该原则有其具体的适用范围。要纠正认识上的偏差和实践中有欠公允的作法 ,正确适用该原则 ,能为实现对侵权行为受害人的救济探索一种途径。     

论巨额财产来源不明罪

现行刑法中规定的巨额财产来源不明罪在理论上存有重大缺陷。立法上的弊端必将随着司法实践的增多而凸显。更为重要的是 ,其规定导致了刑法体系的不协调 ,破坏了刑法公正与功利合理的平衡关系 ,并将造成诉讼程序上的诸多困难。因此 ,在完善国家工作人员财产申报制度的同时 ,改巨额财产来源不明罪为拒不申报财产罪无疑是可行之策。     

略论公司社会责任的刑事立法完善——以现行刑法罚金刑适用为视角

刑事法律是保证公司社会责任的最后配置,同行政责任、民事责任一道形成对抗公司违法乃至犯罪的天网。公司社会责任,在一定意义上需要通过公司刑事责任得以最终实现。因此,公司社会责任的强化意味着公司犯罪刑罚的加重。完善我国公司刑事立法的建议是：以责任一体化为目标,使公司刑事责任等同于自然人刑事责任;加重刑法对公司犯罪的刑罚;加重责任人员刑罚,加大罚金刑和自由刑并用。     

Framing and reframing R2P—a responsibility to protect humanity from evil

ABSTRACT

This article takes issue with de-politicised and moralistic conceptions of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and, inspired by the political theory of Hannah Arendt, develops a ‘re-politicised’ and ‘de-moralised’ account of R2P. It argues that by relying on a link between a moral responsibility to ‘save strangers’ and practical political action, R2P turns a blind eye to the political interest of powerful actors. And by trying to transform R2P into a ‘blueprint’, ‘roadmap’ or ‘emergency plan’ for political action, many commentators try to render obsolete political deliberation and practical judgement on a case-by-case basis. The present article argues that it is necessary to develop a more realistic view of R2P’s role and potential in world politics. R2P, it is argued, has an important discursive function and considerable potential to influence and guide international decision-making processes. Drawing on Arendt’s conception of ‘evil’ as a crime against humanity itself, this article reframes R2P as a ‘responsibility to protect humanity from evil’. An Arendtian understanding of mass atrocities as crimes against our common humanity (i.e. as evils) facilitates the development of a re-politicised and de-moralised account of R2P: This account recognises its discursive role, it actively seeks to generate political interest for action in the face of harrowing mass atrocities but also acts as a leash on intervention in less severe cases.

Abbreviation R2P: Responsibility to Protect; UN: United Nations; NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; ICISS: International Committee on Intervention and State Sovereignty     

论侵犯外交特权与豁免行为的法律责任

外交特权与豁免是现代国际法的重要内容之一,但在实践中,侵犯外交特权与豁免的事件时有发生,这种行为不仅损害相关国家之间的国家关系,而且损害国际社会的和平与稳定。侵犯外交特权与豁免的行为是国际罪行,是国际刑法规范的对象,适用普遍管辖原则。该行为在国际法上引起国家责任,因此,从国际法角度追究相关国家和个人的法律责任是受害国的重要救济手段。     

未成年人侵权、监护责任与民事责任能力制度

《侵权责任法》关于未成年人侵权责任的规定遭到了不少理论上的质疑,以民事责任能力制度为理论基础审视现行法律的规定确实有逻辑上的困惑,据此作出合乎逻辑的调整却未必符合我国的实际情况。将未成年人侵权责任的承担问题转换成监护责任的承担问题,重新审视现行法律会发现侵权责任法的规定具有合理性。据以重构未成年人侵权制度的理论基础———民事责任能力制度本身的价值也是值得怀疑的。