司法鉴定人自主判断权的理性思辨——以法医临床司法鉴定为视角

法医临床司法鉴定领域中,标准规定笼统、术语弹性较大以及技术规范差异等因素,使得鉴定人在一定程度上享有对某些特定问题的自主判断权。自主判断权的应用有其存在的必要性,但需通过必要的措施予以约束与制衡。否则,很难保证司法鉴定的科学、客观、公正,同时也会损害作为证据的司法鉴定意见的证明效力,妨碍司法公正的实现。     

法律判断客观性探询——从德沃金的阐释理论到罗纳根的理解哲学

罗纳根是专门研究人类理解学问的哲学大师,他在一般意义上回答了判断的客观性问题,德沃金则在法律领域论证了判断是有客观性的,相似的是他们都将判断客观性问题转化为判断结论的选择问题。罗纳根通过认知结构的经验、顿悟与判断三重机制,指出排除激情与偏见就能获得正确结论;德沃金认为只能借助偏见才能获得理解,并通过整体性原则与＂二步限缩＂的评估获得最佳答案。因为最佳结论是唯一的,正确判断是既定的,所以这两种路径都能通达客观目的。     

我国刑事缺席审判制度的建构思考——以境外腐败资产的追返机制为视角

以境外腐败资产的追返机制的研究为视角,刑事缺席审判制度应严格实现"对物的审判"与"对人的审判"的分离,将刑事缺席审判的范围严格限定为重大贪污腐败的贪官外逃的案件,同时将刑事缺席审判的功能不定位于解决定罪量刑,而仅仅是解决境外腐败资产的归属,即通过缺席判决来确认国家对被告人卷至境外的腐败资产的合法所有权,从而便于在《联合国反腐败公约》的视野下来顺利追回流失境外的国有资产.     

再评《鹿特丹规则》

在对《海牙规则》《海牙-维斯比规则》《汉堡规则》《鹿特丹规则》作简要比较的基础上,概括论述《鹿特丹规则》的五个特点：扩展了公约适用范围;规范了电子运输记录;明确了承运人交付货物的义务;处理了不可转让运输单证的货物交付问题;完善了诉讼时效相关规定。呼吁中国目前不要加入《鹿特丹规则》,主张吸取《鹿特丹规则》中切合实际的规定,对《海牙-维斯比规则》进行修改。     

The Territorial Scope of Employment Legislation and Choice of Law

Traditionally, the determination of the territorial scope of the statutory rights conferred by employment legislation forming part of English law has been regarded as an issue entirely disconnected from the choice‐of‐law process. Indeed, this view formed the basis of the key decision addressing the problem of territoriality, Lawson v Serco, decided by the House of Lords in 2006. After presenting the current state of the law with regard to the territorial scope of employment legislation, this article takes a critical look at Lawson v Serco. It is argued that the ‘European’ choice‐of‐law rules must have a greater importance for determining the territorial scope of employment legislation and, consequently, that the approach pursued in Lawson v Serco is no longer correct, if it ever was, and should not be followed in the future.     

Legal grounds to process personal data under Spanish legislation after the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 (the ASNEF and FECEMD case)

Spanish law on personal data protection regulates (among other issues) the legal bases that permit the processing of data in a way that is similar to that set out in Directive 95/46/EC. Consent constitutes the general rule although data may be processed without it if necessary for administration functions, within the framework of a contractual relationship, in order to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or if they are included in sources accessible to the public. However, unlike the Directive, legitimate interest is not recognised as an independent reason for processing data, whereas a legal ground that is not set out in community law is included, i.e., sources accessible to the public. This paper analyses these two cases, taking as its starting point consent, along with the consequences that the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 regarding the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC may have and giving attention to the revision of this Directive itself.     

民事间接强制执行比较研究

虽未引起理论界关注,间接强制执行制度已在我国探索和实施多时。我国现行间接强制执行种类复杂,整体上为人身限制和经济处罚相结合的复合型;在性质上,既有债务仍存和收缴国库模式,又有充抵债务和损害赔偿模式;在适用范围上实行所有类型债务执行均予适用的泛化模式。我国此制度可从民事执行实效、保障基本人权、程序控制等方面入手完善。     

社会舆论与司法机关的博弈与双赢

社会舆论与司法判决两者的权利均来自于《宪法》,一方权利的扩张,则导致权利失衡,形成社会舆论与司法机关的博弈。激烈的利益冲突使得双方两败俱伤,因此,通过在立法过程中对民意进行疏通汇总,在审判程序中完善人民陪审员制度对民意加以引导,营造社会舆论与司法机关双赢的局面至关重要。     

行政诉讼检察监督研究简

长期以来,行政诉讼检察监督由于立法缺陷、行政检察法律体系发展迟缓以及主观方面的认识偏差等原因,导致其在实践中一直被束缚在对行政生效裁判的审查抗诉之中,无论在理论上还是在实践中都迟迟得不到全面发展.结合检察机关行政诉讼检察监督的司法实践,从探讨行政诉讼检察监督应然意义出发,对行政诉讼检察监督的监督对象、范围以及方式等提出几点建议和展望,以期行政诉讼检察监督工作能够突破现有制度的藩篱,建立符合其自身规律和要求的制度模式.     

法律推理规则与价值判断依据的基础性构建

“同案不同判”的出现反映出了当前司法改革工作当中司法实务人员法律思维模式僵化、裁判文书欠缺说理性等问题,其深层次原因是我国法律推理规则和法官价值判断依据的应用混乱、基础性构建不完善所致.为推动司法改革、进一步实现司法公正,必须正视法律说理不完善、逻辑规则应用混乱,通过制度约束达成价值判断依据与道德衡量的再平衡.