WTO专家组和上诉机构举证责任分配标准的合理性分析

WTO专家组和上诉机构为了完成其迅速而有效地解决争端的义务,在DSU没有对举证责任分配规则做出任何规定的情形下,在判例中基本采用了谁主张谁举证的原则,同时,也发展了一些举证责任分配规则和标准。遗憾的是,专家组和上诉机构的实践表明,他们并没有严格遵守其形成的相关举证责任分配规则,其形成的相关标准也缺乏合理性:传统的谁主张谁举证原则由于忽视了实质公平,在WTO审理实践中容易被滥用;例外规定与排除规定之间存在区别的分析多此一举;重要性等级标准缺乏合理性及例外规定作为举证责任分配的标准既没有法律依据,其合理性也受到质疑。这必然削弱了WTO争端解决机制的权威性,因此,对WTO专家组和上诉机构所形成的举证责任分配规则和标准实行必要的改革,已成为当务之急。     

非政府组织与世界贸易组织争端解决机制

本文叙述了非政府组织作为“法庭之友”参与WTO争端解决机制的理论与实践及其纷争,对此作了较为深入的价值分析和理论阐释,进而提出了解决这一问题的可能思路、制度设计和情境设置,并指出了其对于国际经济法理论与实践发展趋势的意义蕴涵。本文认为,“法庭之友”问题表明WTO争端解决机制必须谋求外交方法与司法方法的平衡,尤其应该确认争端解决机制的司法独立和自由裁量,并应从多重视域中谋求一种多元互动的解决之道。     

Liberalism and Religion: Amplifiers of War between Democratic and Non-Democratic States?

This study tests the association between liberalism and religion on militarized disputes in the politically and religiously similar and mixed state dyads. The analysis (1980–2001) integrates the Correlates of War and World Religion Datasets. The findings suggest that while religious makeup of state dyads does not vitiate the impact of democracy, religious similarity amplifies the impact of liberalism. The results also suggest that Christian–Muslim dyads, especially Christian–Sunni and Christian–Muslim other than Shia and Sunni dyads, are more likely to engage in militarized disputes, and regime differences increase the chances of conflict in the joint Muslim dyads.     

论法律中的事实问题

事实是主客观相统一的范畴 ,客观性是指事实的实在性 ,而主观性可以理解为事实的语言性和事实的选择性。事实是纠纷的组成元素 ,我们能够在掌握一个纠纷的部分事实的情况下把握纠纷的面貌 ,并在此基础上作出裁判 ,是由于我们利用了“法律事实”概念 ,因为在既有法律制度范围内 ,裁判对事实的选择受制于法律。事实得到确证才能成为裁判根据。确证事实有多种方法 ,但在大多数情形下要通过证据证明。     

也谈“小影霸”商标纠纷案－兼与周佳念先生商榷

商标注册后应当使用 ,如果“连续三年停止使用” ,则可能导致该注册商标被撤销。在商标局受理撤销申请后 ,商标注册人有无权利转让该商标 ?在判断一件“注而不用”的商标是否应予撤销时 ,除了具备“连续三年停止使用”的条件外 ,是否还应考虑其他因素 ?某一商标“注而不用” ,经他人使用并创出一定知名度后 ,商标注册人起而行使其商标权 ,是否有“坐收渔人之利”之嫌 ?针对上述问题 ,本文进行了探讨并提出相应的建议。     

事业单位人事争议仲裁相关因素研究

目前,我国事业单位正在推行聘用制,人事争议处理制度成为聘用制改革的重要配套措施之一,但原《人事争议处理暂行规定》等有关规定,已不能适应我国事业单位人事制度改革发展的需要,在某些程序上——仲裁机构设置、仲裁员任职条件、仲裁与司法接轨等方面亟须作出改进与完善。     

Pathways to aggression: A factorial survey of “Routine conflict”

Based on data collected in 1994 from a factorial survey of 2052 respondents, this paper examines how routine conflict may escalate into aggression taking into account social context and characteristics of the victim and offender. Following Luckenbill and Doyle's (1989) suggestion, we developed a series of scenarios to examine the influence of structural position on the emergence of disputes and the legitimation of aggression. The analysis reveals a direct relationship between the intensity of an attack with the emergence of a dispute and the legitimation of aggression. Results indicate that situational aspects of structural position do not extend beyond sex differences. This emphasizes the generalizing effect of male on male confrontation in the legitimation of aggression. The strengths and limitations of scenario-based research for understanding violence in society are discussed. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Miami, November 1994.     

Designing Ethical Online Dispute Resolution Systems: The Rise of the Fourth Party

As the pandemic forces public and private institutions to move online, many court and business leaders are looking to the field of online dispute resolution (ODR) for best practices and lessons learned. Developed over the last twenty years, largely in response to the growth of e‐commerce, the ODR field has generated a deep well of theory and practice while also identifying potential ethical dilemmas and risks. The application of technology, the “fourth party,” plays an increasingly integral role in how we negotiate resolutions to our disputes, with or without a third party. A brief overview of the history of ODR’s development will set the context for the exploration of the range of tools and techniques encompassed by online dispute resolution. Consideration of the ethical challenges raised by ODR practice will illuminate key questions and choices that need to be made in designing ODR systems and in governing their use.     

试论实质性解决行政纠纷的可能性

中国的行政审判经过多年的发展走到今天,在理论上取得了一定成就,但在制度层面却暴露了越来越多的问题,不能在最终意义上实质性解决行政纠纷尤为严重。因此,现行的行政审判制度面临着重新检视过去所建立的行政审判目标是否与实际运行中所需要的行政审判制度相适应的问题。从我国现行行政审判制度及其存在的理论根基的矛盾出发,通过探究我国当前建立行政审判制度目标的背景,证明以实质性解决纠纷作为我国行政审判制度的目标具有现实可能性。     

积极预防与有效化解:社会治理创新背景下我国行政纠纷的实质消解战略

党的十八届三中全会着力"推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化",进而提出"创新社会治理体制","创新有效预防和化解社会矛盾体制"的发展战略。社会治理方式由社会管理创新到社会治理创新的革命性转换既表明了实现行政纠纷实质消解的紧迫性和正当性,也为确立行政纠纷实质消解战略提供了全新的双重维度:导正人心以实现积极预防,健全制度以实现有效化解。由此才能形成便民、协调、公正、有效的多元行政纠纷解决机制。