我国证券侵权民事责任归责分析——原则:立法与司法的冲突与协调

归责原则是各类证券民事责任主体承担民事责任的主要标准之一,不仅关系当事人的民事实体责任,还与诉讼程序中举证责任的分配等有着密切的关联性,因此,研究证券民事责任的归责原则具有重要的审判实践意义。最高人民法院对证券侵权民事责任主体的归责原则之规定,忽略了与现行立法之间的协调与衔接,有的与法理相悖,两者之间的冲突导致审判实践的困惑。实际上,我国证券侵权民事责任主体不同,且各自的法律义务和社会责任的差异,故其归责原则呈多元化的特点。     

由一则案例引发的关于票据保证人责任的思考

根据我国现行票据法的规定,票据保证人在票据上签章对票据债务进行保证,产生相应的票据责任。票据保证人与普通债权的保证人的责任与权利是否存在区别?当票据保证人所保证的债务无效时,票据保证人的责任如何?这些都是关系到债权债务能否顺利实现的重要问题。文章从票据保证人责任的特性,票据保证人责任与民事保证人责任的比较,被保证债务无效的情形及对保证人责任的影响三个方面进行分析,进一步明确在实践中根据被保证债务无效的具体情形,依法认定票据保证人的责任。     

“说谎权”抑或真实供述义务：沉默权之后的两难选择——规制被告人说谎行为的比较法研究

在法官主持的讯问中,针对被告人的说谎行为刑事诉讼中有两种立法规制,英国规定被告人具有真实供述义务而德国赋予其说谎权。说谎权体现了对被告人人格尊严的尊重,但不利于事实真相的查明、诉讼效率的实现。这与我国对英国和德国的法律特点的总体认识出现背离。通过对英、德两国司法制度的比较,揭示了法律是一个有机的整体,立法要注意与该国其他法律制度相契合,要与本土资源相吻合。进而思考我国在立法规制被告人的说谎行为时应当予以关注的问题。     

"好意施惠"行为及相关的责任承担

好意施惠行为在生活中大量存在,但是它的法律性质却不明确,相关的责任承担往往无法得到妥善解决,甚至影响到社会的和谐发展.本文认为,好意施惠行为不是法律行为,它应该属于事实行为中的无因管理行为,在特殊情况下,它还可能转化为侵权行为.     

侵权补充责任研究——以安全保障义务为研究对象

《最高人民法院关于审理人身损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的理解》和《侵权责任法》先后实施,直接规定了安全保障义务情形下的侵权补充责任.但是,安全保障义务这一特殊情形下的侵权责任如何适用?希冀从安全保障义务出发力图对侵权补充责任作以深入阐述,重新思考我国现行立法,并从实证角度作了简要分析,认为应扩大对安全保障义务人范围.     

美国刑法共谋者替代责任规则之演进述评

共谋者是否对共同共谋者实行的实体犯罪承担替代责任,美国刑法以平克顿案为分水岭,经历否定论→基本肯定论→实质限定论的演变历程。类型弱化标准是可合理预见性标准的重述,可能无法确保对平克顿规则的严格限制。事实弱化标准或超出轻微参与标准,更有利于限制共谋者替代责任的适用范围,将轻微参与共谋而与实体犯罪的实行存在弱化关系的共谋者排除在替代责任的适用范围之外。事实弱化或超出轻微参与标准,对我国处理类似案件具有借鉴意义。     

Does Control Make a Difference? The Moral Foundations of Shareholder Liability for Corporate Wrongs

The doctrine of limited liability, as traditionally understood, prevents shareholders from being held personally liable for corporate wrongs. Several authors have recently argued that the doctrine should be modified to make some or all shareholders individually liable for torts committed by corporations in which they hold shares. This article distinguishes three types of argument that might provide a moral basis for shareholder liability in such cases. I contend that while these arguments support holding at least some shareholders liable for corporate torts, they fail to justify a general regime of unlimited pro rata shareholder liability. The level of control shareholders exercise over a company makes an important difference to their moral duties to compensate victims of corporate wrongdoing.     

Defamation in cyberspace: A Japanese perspective

The aim of this paper is two-fold: first, to introduce how Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with the case of on-line defamation, which is arguably one of the most acute problems in modern society, and second, to critically examine the efficacy of such an approach. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in on-line defamation (as oppose to off-line defamation) will be introduced as an exemplar of the way Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with such an acute problem. A first step will be to provide, by way of background, a brief overview of how defamation in a conventional sense has been treated by the Japanese legal system. The second step will be to outline how the Japanese jurisdiction has dealt with on-line defamation, that is to say, to what extent the Japanese court regulates on-line defamatory comments made by the ordinary people. A third step will be to examine the efficacy of such an approach, and the final step will be to examine whether the UK court can learn a lesson from the Japanese jurisdiction. The author will draw upon Japanese jurisprudence, in order to consider whether a valuable lesson might be offered to the UK jurisdiction.     

论“因侵权而犯罪”与“因犯罪而侵权”

刑事侵权具备"刑事责任"、"侵权责任"双重责任属性,由于刑、民责任在发展进程、互动的路径及效果上的不同,可分化为"因侵权而犯罪"与"因犯罪而侵权",即刑事侵权二分论。"因侵权而犯罪"具有民事责任倾向性,"因犯罪而侵权"具有刑事责任倾向性,解决刑事侵权责任问题须兼顾侵权责任法与刑事法的正义要求。刑民二分论有坚实的法律基础,符合法律价值基础的要求,当刑事责任与侵权责任进行内容接轨与功能互补时,可在实践中实现预期的价值目标和社会效益的最大化。     

论消费者权之法律边界

消费者权的行使可能会损害经营者的经营自由,权利冲突意味着权利的限制与边界,确立消费者权法律边界的理论依据主要有权利冲突理论和权利不得滥用原则。过错责任是消费者权利与经营者经济自由平衡保护的重要机制,特殊消费侵权行为适用无过错责任时,也应遵循法益衡量规则。