试论中国产品质量的归责原则

我国法学 (学术 )界对中国产品质量的归责问题有几种不同的观点 :第一种是“过失责任说” ;第二种是“过错推定说” ;第三种是“视为有过错说” ;第四种是“严格责任说”或“无过错责任说” ;第五种是“综合责任说”。第五种观点既总结了以往法学界在产品责任归责上的研究成果 ,又结合了《产品质量法》的规定 ,基本上反映了我国产品责任的法律现状。然而我国目前的《产品质量法》处罚仍偏轻。加重处罚 ,提高法律的可操作性是进一步完善《产品责任法》或《产品质量法》的两个重要方面     

对刑法"不得假释"之规定(81条第二款)的商榷

限制假释与世界行刑现代化方向不吻合。对假释在实践中存在的问题应具体分析,但不能因噎废食。我国限制假释的理论依据值得商榷,事实表明:限制假释不利于调动在监服刑犯的改造积极性,不利于他们的重新社会化过程,与监狱法中对罪犯实行惩罚与改造相结合的原则不符;同时,在维护社会的稳定以及体现法律的公正、衔接等方面并非是一个较好的选择。所以,建议对该刑法条款进行修改,并通过对我国假释管理体制的完善,逐步扩大对假释的适用。     

律师刑事责任豁免权必要性刍议

目前 ,我国律师在刑事执业中困难重重 ,不利于对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人合法权益的保护 ,最主要的原因是律师在刑事执业中风险太大。赋予律师在刑事诉讼中豁免权有利于实现设立律师制度的目的 ,维护弱者权利 ,维护最基本人权 ,同时也是跟国际相接轨的现实需要。     

Divorcing Responsibly

In this article I argue that Part II of the Family LawAct 1996 gives expression to a new form ofresponsibility. I begin by suggesting thatresponsible behaviour has shifted from prohibiting orrequiring particular actions: we now exhibitresponsibility by our attitude towards our actions. I then examine where this new conception ofresponsibility has come from. Through an examinationof the work of post-liberal theorists, principallyMichael Sandel, I argue that a changing view ofpersonhood within post-liberal theory has led to aquestioning of the possibility of choice, and that theabsence of choice necessitates a shift in thedefinition of responsible behaviour. If we are createdby our decisions then we cannot be held to account forour decisions, but only for the care we have takenover them. Responsibility is therefore measured notby our level of self-control but by our level ofself-awareness. Finally I examine the consequences ofthis shift in the meaning of responsibility. Withinthis framework autonomy is illusory thereforedecisions do not need to be respected. This explainswhy the implementation of Part II of the Family LawAct 1996 has been called into question. Within thisframework responsibility is relative therefore itextends indefinitely. This enables the Family Law Actto be uniquely intrusive and judgmental: everydivorcing couple, on being held up to scrutiny, isfound lacking.     

Harm,Consent and the Limits of Privacy

Within the context of U.K. law, the right to respect for private life, articulated in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and acknowledged more opaquely in domestic legislation and case law, is one whose scope is unclear. Nowhere is this brought into sharper relief than in cases where conduct which manifests a person’s sexual identity, or concerns her intimate relations with others, is prima facie criminal. In this essay I attempt, through a discussion of cases in which injury is caused in the context of relationships experienced inter-subjectively as private, to explore the contexts in which the law is prepared to legitimate that inter-subjective experience, and where it is not. Using cases in which injury has been caused purposively (in S/M sex), and incidentally (through the reckless transmission of HIV during sexual intercourse), the essay argues that the law is prepared to respect the right to respect for private life only in so far as the private life concerned is one which reinforces traditional gender roles and relationship types; in short, a life that one would be prepared to live publicly.     

完善我国产品责任立法的几点建议

产品质量和产品责任问题已成为非常突出的社会问题,有必要借鉴他国产品责任立法,扩大"产品"的范围,明确产品"缺陷"的定义,确立严格责任原则,增设惩罚性赔偿制度,扩大产品责任义务主体的范围,扩大保护对象的范围,不断完善我国产品责任立法。     

浅论营利性医疗机构人力资源管理的困境和出路

随着医疗机构分类制度的推行 ,营利性医疗机构将得到不断发展。但是营利性医疗机构的组织目标、资金来源、服务范围和手段、公众形象和以往具有福利性质的医疗机构有很大不同 ,因此营利性医疗机构的人力资源管理将面临组织成员“双重角色”的对立、管理体系“双重权威”的冲突等问题。有关人员必须坚持从实际出发 ,尊重市场经济的规律和卫生工作的特点 ,建立以责任制为中心的新的组织运行模式 ,形成适应市场经济的人力资源管理系统 ,在冲突和矛盾中寻求一致和协调 ,逐步规范和发展营利性医疗机构的人力资源管理 ,使其更好地服务于社会主义现代化建设     

单位共同犯罪及其刑事责任剖析

单位共同犯罪,是我国刑事立法和理论的一个发展,文章对单位共同犯罪的特征、形态、责任,在与自然人共同犯罪进行比较的基础上,作了具体剖析     

教唆犯在实行过限中的刑事责任认定简

实行过限是伴随共同犯罪的发生而出现的一种特殊犯罪形态.根据过限的范围,—般可分为质的过限、量的过限和转化的过限.目前学界在教唆犯实行过限的认定上提出了超出教唆故意说、未预见说和教唆类型区分说,以其中任何一种学说作为认定过限的唯一标准并不可取.认定教唆犯才在实行过限中的刑事责任应根据主客观相一致的原理,以超出教唆故意说为基本原则,综合运用未预见说和教唆类型区分说予以应对教唆犯罪中实行过限的各种复杂情形.     

对绑架罪中绝对确定法定刑条款的思考

我国刑法在绑架罪中规定,绑架＂致使被绑架人死亡＂和＂杀害被绑架人＂处死刑。这种绝对确定的法定刑符合罪刑法定的要求,有利于司法的一致性。但是,绑架＂致使被绑架人死亡＂和＂杀害被绑架人＂分别包含不同情形,二者相互之间及其不同情形的主观恶性和社会危害性等不尽相同,根据罪责刑相适应原则,不应当采取完全相同的法定刑。绑架罪中绝对确定法定刑应当进行修改,赋予法官一定的自由裁量权,从而更好地实现司法正义。