全球化环境中的知识产权保护——全球化与知识产权保护国际会议综述

全球化环境下知识产权保护存在很多值得探讨的问题。由中国政法大学民商经济法学院举办、中国政法大学民商经济法学院知识产权法研究所承办、美国Kenyon&Kenyon LLP和National Economic Research Associates,Inc.提供赞助的全球化与知识产权保护国际会议于2007年1月20—21在北京召开,近二百名国内外知识产权专家学者探讨了全球化环境下知识产权保护的一系列问题。本次会议对于推动国内外知识产权理论与实践问题的研究具有深远意义。     

论消除权利贫困与构建和谐社会

构建和谐社会必须消除不和谐现象,权利贫困是造成社会不和谐的本源性因素,许多不和谐现象都是由权利贫困引起的.权利贫困与和谐社会之间存在着彼此消长的关系,消除权利贫困是构建和谐社会的根本途径,构建和谐社会是消除权利贫困的有效措施.消除权利贫困对于构建和谐社会具有重大的现实意义,符合和谐社会的公平正义特征.全面提高社会生活的民主化程度和普遍提升公众的权利意识,是消除权利贫困的根本性对策.     

《物权法》中物权限制制度的成功与不足

物权限制是指法律对物权的支配力和排他力的限制,亦即对物权人享有的利益和行为自由以及对抗第三人效力的限制。我国《物权法》中物权限制制度具有以下优点:限权模式合理、可行;限权范围全面、突出;限权目的明确、正当。我国《物权法》中物权限制制度的不足是:物权限制制度并未充分体现国情、物权限制制度存在立法技术上的缺陷。     

略论行政控权

行政权力的行使必须受到法律的制约,在法律设定的范围内进行。不受法律约束的权力会导致权力的滥用,形成权力腐败;不受法律约束的权力是人治的典型体现,与法治水火不容。为了使行政执法依法进行,行政相对方的权利尽量少受侵害,行政控权势在必行。从这个意义上说,控权是行政法实施的基础。     

走出自然权利认识的误区

在自然权利的问题上,存在着人类中心主义与非人类中心主义的尖锐对立,人们遵循着非此即彼的一种思维定势,认为二者水火不容,这是一个认识上的误区。即使作为坚守非人类中心主义立场的观察者也不得不承认发达的人类中心主义是实现自然权利的必由之路。贫穷不是非人类中心主义,只有在与自然和谐的基础上实现人类的生态化的富足,才有实现自然权利的可能。     

Justice,Fairness, and World Ownership

It is a central tenet of most contemporarytheories of justice that the badly-off have aright to some of the resources of the well-off.In this paper, I take as my starting point twoprinciples of justice, to wit, the principle ofsufficiency, whereby individuals have a rightto the material resources they need in order tolead a decent life, and the principle ofautonomy, whereby once everybody has such alife, individuals should be allowed to pursuetheir conception of the good, and to enjoy thefruits of their labour in pursuit of suchconception. I also endorse the value offairness, whereby the right person orinstitution makes the decision as to whether tobring about justice.I show that justice and fairness can besatisfied only if we all enjoy a combination ofprivate and collective rights over the world.In making that case, I shall argue that the setof ownership rights I advocate differs fromreadily available conceptions of restrictedprivate ownership in two important respects.First, it is such that in some circumstances,two individuals or more can have control rightsover the same property at the same time, not,as is standardly the case in legal systems, bycontracting with one another (through gifts andjoint purchase), but simply on grounds ofjustice. Second, it allows that, if necessary,property-owners be expropriated from theirproperty without compensation.     

The Frontiers of Legal Analysis: Reframing the Transition in Northern Ireland

British constitutional legal discourse is structurally limited in its capacity to capture the complexity of the Good Friday Agreement. Rather than assessing the Agreement in narrow devolutionary terms, it should be seen as a hybrid domestic and international law instrument, making an important contribution to accepted international law norms in relation to self-determination. The Agreement transforms and partly transcends the Northern Ireland conflict by substituting political contestation for violent conflict, and by defining the modalities of conducting that contestation. This analysis complements classical international law perspectives, and opens up the application of legal discourses associated with 'transitional justice' to the legal and political transformation in Northern Ireland. These discourses focus on the problem of reconciling the demands of peace with the imperatives of justice. The Agreement sits squarely in this terrain with its provisions on 'dealing with the past' and 'institutional legacies'. The insights gained here challenge orthodox thinking about conflict-management and the ongoing political process.     

解读“国家尊重和保障人权”——析宪法修改对刑事诉讼法再修改的影响

修改后的宪法确立了“国家尊重和保障人权”原则。从修宪的背景、修宪的精神以及立法机关的解释可以解读出 ,该原则强调人权的个体性、非工具性和非功利性。我国现行刑事诉讼法的目的具有极强的功利性 ,对权利保障的规定具有浓厚的工具色彩。因此 ,刑事诉讼法再修改时 ,应当以修宪所确立的人权保障内涵和要求为检视标准 ,重新界定刑事诉讼法的目的 ,确立或修改相关的诉讼原则、制度和规则。     

刑事诉讼强制措施的适用应遵守比例原则——兼论相关检察监督

刑事强制措施作为刑事诉讼的重要手段和保障措施长期以来得到了充分的运用,但法律有关强制措施强度及其适用的规定存在着明显不足,客观上导致其在实践中被不正确适用甚至滥用。引进比例原则,对强制措施的适用加以合理限制,使其与被追诉人适用的刑罚相谐调,有利于其在刑事诉讼中发挥合理效能。