试论宗教自由的规范构造--以联合国和我国相关文件为背景的分析

联合国和我国相关文件或条款不乏相通之处,对此,可以从语言和逻辑两个角度进行分析。宗教自由,从语言上讲,可以体现为确认、行使、限制和保证等条款;从逻辑上讲,则体现为意志自由和行为自由。而所谓“信仰自由”,可以说,更多是一种权利,而不是自由。在宗教自由的语言结构和逻辑结构之间,存在着某种对应关系。     

法人侵权责任能力的理论预设与制度设计——以法人本质理论为线索

我国民法学界以法人实在说承认法人的独立意志为理由,论证了法人承担侵权责任能力的合理基础,继而对拟制说进行批判,而事实上法人承担侵权责任完全是基于特定利益衡量的立法构造,与其意志的有无没有必然的关联。法人的侵权责任是法人机关的侵权责任,从形式逻辑的角度而言,它与法人的工作人员的侵权责任是有本质区别的,但就立法构造而言二者区分并无实际价值,在法人侵权责任具体承担方式上应该采取让法人机关与法人承担连带责任的方式。     

犯罪对策与刑罚措施－从自由意志与决定论出发

犯罪人的意志既是自由的又是被社会现实条件所制约的,因此,必须在认清个人责任和社会责任的基础上采取相应的犯罪对策与刑罚措施。     

自然法的理智主义与意志主义之争——中世纪晚期自然法思想研究

中世纪晚期是自然法思想由古代向近现代、由神圣向世俗转变的重要过渡期。宗教、政治、经济和文化等方面的因素程度不同的作用于自然法观念的变迁。其中,启示信仰与哲学、宗教神圣与世俗之间的矛盾冲突构成了其根本的动力。在此基础上,自然法理论的发展呈现为理智主义与意志主义两条不同的进路,它们在有关自然法问题的各个方面展开了激烈的争论,不仅决定了其后自然法理论的走向,也影响着我们当下的选择判断。     

现实与尴尬：论羌族“释比”文化的传承与保护

羌族＂释比文化＂已处于濒危状态：释比传承人愈来愈少面临同化,更令人担忧的是信仰的缺失。＂释比文化＂的传承与保护要把＂释比文化＂纳入非物质文化遗产保护范畴内进行抢救保护,处理好羌族＂释比文化＂保护与旅游开发之间的关系,在羌族居住地做好羌语羌文推广工作,积极引导羌族现存宗教仪式中的积极因素与社会和谐共进,也是焕发羌族文化活力、保护和传承本民族文化的重要手段。     

对生前预嘱相关问题的探讨

生前预嘱是指人在意识清楚时签署一份文书来事先表达出自己在生命末期的医疗意愿。本文针对生前预嘱的理解和适用中存在的相关问题作出探讨。本文以尊严死在我国的提出以及生前预嘱在我国的推广现状为基础,从法律的视角分析了生前预嘱的合法性和必要要件,并阐明了在目前的法律框架下生前预嘱还不是生效的法律文件,生前预嘱的落实还需要亲属的同意。本文借鉴其他国家和地区对生前预嘱的立法状况并结合我国的实际,提出了对于放弃治疗和尊严死的理解,以及针对医疗实践中放弃治疗的困惑提出了对放弃治疗应该严格遵循的原则。     

论遗嘱处分在财产继承中的优位效力——与法定继承相比较

相对于法定继承而言,遗嘱处分在财产继承中具有优先适用的效力。这种优位效力,不仅体现在继承立法上,而且也反映在具体的司法实务中;遗嘱处分的优位效力取决于私法自治及其支配下的遗嘱自由原则。     

对中国登记离婚制度的评价与反思

The Regulations on Marriage Registration promulgated in 2003 advocates the ideas for autonomy of private law, such as “autonomy of individual will”, “self responsibility” and “self-determination right”, ushering a new era of Chinese divorce registration system from supervision by employed institution to self responsibility, however, such issues also result in excessive freedom and insufficient restriction. In setting up the divorce registration system, therefore, it shall also be considered for the protection of disadvantaged parties and minor children so as to ensure the fairness and justice of law and the harmony and stability of society. Xia Yinlan, LL.D, is a professor and doctoral tutor and the dean of the School of International Studies in China University of Political Science and Law. She is also the vice chairman of Beijing Women’s Federation, the member of the executive committee of China Women’s Federation, the director of Marriage and Family Legal Research Institution under the supervision of China Law Society, the vice director of China Association of Marriage and Family Studies, the standing director of the International Family Law Society, the vice director of Beijing Women’s Law Research Institution. Her major academic interest covers women’s human rights, heritage law and family law. She was once a Fulbright visiting scholar in the United States and a legal expert in Macau Legal Affair Bureau. She’s one of the experts in drafting the P.R.C. Law on the Protection Of Women’s Rights (revised), the Marriage Law of P.R.C. (revised) and the Regulation of Marriage Registration of P.R.C., and she is still active in participating in the legislation activities of China. Prof. Xia wrote or co-wrote more than 20 monographs and textbooks, including American Modern Family and Marriage System, the Freedom and Restriction of Divorce, the Basic Framework Research on Domestic Violence Law, etc. In Chinese and foreign academic journals, more than 60 articles have been released, such as the study on property segmentation in divorce in China, the study on family violence under the framework of women’s rights, the comparison on the factual marriage in Macau and the Mainland of China.     

Mos Geometricus and the Common Law Mind: Interrogating Contract Theory

Euclidian theories have it that there exist one or a small number of apex principles from which the entire fasciculus of rules of contract law can be logically deduced. Two arguments are marshalled against the Euclidian project. First, that it has been unsuccessfully attempted before – in the form of the nineteenth century contract law treatise which emulated the civil lawyer's rationalistic model, mos geometricus – cautioning us against setting much store by its present reincarnation. Second, that the common law's methodology makes it resistant to this form of theorising. Euclidian theory presupposes a picture of rules on which: a) cases involve an application of logically prior rules; b) rules are reliably identifiable by different actors in the legal system; and c) rules normatively range over an indefinite spectrum of future cases. It will be argued that the common law defies this picture of rules thus rendering Euclidian theory analytically impossible.