论无过错责任原则

侵权行为民事责任的归责原则,是确定行为人民事责任的标准和规则,是确定侵权责任的根据之一。我国民事责任的归责原则体系由过错责任原则、无过错责任原则和公平原则构成。无过错责任原则是其中一项特殊的归责原则,有其独立存在的价值和作用。由于尚未设计出与该原则配套的制度以及现实生活中理解的偏差,使得该归责原则在实践运用中矛盾丛生。但无论在世界上还是在我国,其适用的范围都愈来愈广,所以对无过错责任原则进行正确认识和完善势在必行。     

王国维"二重证据法"的形成及其意义(下)

三、<殷先公先王考>和<续考>:熟练运用"二重证据法"取得的重大成果 王国维成熟地运用"二重证据法"取得的重大成果,是1917年初先后撰成的<殷卜辞中所见先公先王考>和<殷卜辞中所见先公先王续考>两文.因其所运用的方法缜密精当,解决的问题重大,为研究者打开了一片新天地,故成为近代史学史上意义重大的一页.     

法医物证学miRNA分析的研究进展

在种属和体液鉴定及降解检材等特殊案件的分析时,转录水平的miRNA所具有的生物属性及表达特点,使其能够发挥基因组DNA所不具备的价值。本文通过概述法医物证学miRNA研究的现状,对法医miRNA分析的研究策略和法医物证学应用前景进行了综述,以期为法医miRNA分析的应用研究提供借鉴。     

自然人书面契约取信方式研究

印章文化在我国源远流长,其中公章自古至今为实用而治,私章则经历了一个从实用到艺术的转变过程。我国古代书面契约的取信方式历经变化,但私章讫未成为公认的取信手段。西方国家在法律史上曾有盖印取信的制度,但当今通行的法定取信手段则是签名。我国现行法上的书面契约取信方式兼采签名和盖章。私章自身的内在局限及签名取信的多维优势,决定了签名取代私章的必然。自然人主体书面契约的取信方式统一于签名,是法律体系内部相协调的需要,并可以获得法律解释理论上的有力支撑。     

刑事审判中实物证据的审查判断及排除

刑事审判中,实物证据以其特有的客观性、稳定性和不可替代性特征而对于案件事实的认定发挥着令人更为信服的证实作用,从而显示出实物证据的证明优势。但实物证据在刑事诉讼证明中,也存在其一定的局限性。对于实物证据的审查,应主要从其客观真实性、证据来源、保管和鉴定过程、与案件事实的关联性、是否全面等方面进行。对于非法实物证据实行有别于言词证据的裁量排除原则,即只有在相关部门不能补正或者作出合理解释的情况下,才对其予以排除。     

网络证据的基本特性

网络证据是在网络条件下存在的用于证明案件事实的材料,它具有流动性强、存在范围广、信息量大、形式多样、超文本等特点。与传统的证据相比,它又具有数字性、准确性、依赖性、稳定性、多媒体性、传输快捷性、可分离性等特征。相对于电子证据,网络证据在生成的主体与场所上,在传输的环境、速度和范围上,在收集的主体、场所及方式上,在证据的保全和审查判断上等方面都表现出自身的特性。     

论“本质错误”——以罗马法为中心

在罗马法中,本质错误与身份错误、行为性质的错误、标的物错误并称为使行为无效的四种实质性错误。本质错误与材料错误相关又不等同于材料错误。本质错误的内涵见于D.18,1,9,2中的"醋为酒卖"案,是在社会经济功能影响下的标的物之内在特性发生错误。本质错误的外延见于"古杯"案及D.18,1,11、D.18,1,14等文本,涵涉了大部分的材料错误和性别错误,并可以作为一种兜底条款适用于那些对诸如艺术品价值、作者发生错误的情形。本质错误在近代演化为法国法的"实质错误"、意大利法的"本质上的错误"、瑞士法的"重大错误"、德国法和我国台湾地区法的"性质错误",在赋予法官自由裁量权的功能上,它们和中国大陆民法的错误制度殊途同归。     

On the Legitimacy of the Defense Lawyer Verifying the Evidence with the Defendant Fully before Trial

Since 2012 when the Criminal Procedure Law stipulated that the defense counsel can verify evidence with the defendant at the prosecution stage, the theoretical circle and the practical circle debated over the scope of the evidence for verification. On the basis of understanding the purpose of verification of evidence in a narrow sense, the side of the scope-limitation argued that the type, the scope of previewing evidence verification, and the right of checking only belong to lawyer. However, from the legislative reasons to protect the defendant's effective quality certificate, to maintain the basic structure that the lawyer verifies the evidence with the defendant, and to prepare effectively for the defense, the defendant should conduct a comprehensive examination of the evidence. Therefore, the defense lawyer verifying the evidence fully with the defendant has legitimacy.     

略论死刑复核中“发回”案件的重新审判

在重新审判“发回”重审死刑案件的司法实践中，对被告人容易产生有罪推定的倾向、依据补强证据再次适用死刑的倾向和漠视侦控行为合法性的倾向，为此重审法院应杜绝片面依据侦控机关提供的不利于被告人的存疑补强证据，对被告人再次适用死刑；对“事实不清、证据不足型”发回重审的死刑案件，如果经过重审认定的案件事实没有发生重大变化，一般也不宜对被告人再次适用死刑。     

The Significant Development of the Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China: from the Perspective of the Promulgation of “The Rule of Strict Exclusion of Illegal Evidence”

The function and value of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence lie not only in the prevention of mistrial, but also in the manifestation of procedural justice, the regulation of judicial conduct and the emphasis on the protection of human rights. The promulgation of “the rule of strict exclusion of illegal evidence” has made a positive response to the practical problems during the implementation of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. Many provisions in this rule are much more strict than before, such as further defining the scope of illegal oral evidence, clarifying the method of excluding the repeated confessions, emphasizing the timeliness of exclusion of illegal evidence and the synchronization of supervision of investigation, attaching the importance of collection and application of process evidence, and exerting the review of the legitimacy of evidence in pre-trial conference. After the promulgation of “the rule of strict exclusion of illegal evidence”, we should continue to focus on the implementation of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, ensuring its function of post-punishment and illegal prevention.