On the Sources of International Criminal Law

In their efforts to establish a quite original system of proceduraland material rules of international criminal law, by means ofthe so-called "judge-made law", the two ad hoc Tribunals forthe Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda hold a peculiar approach tothe sources of that law. The most controversial of all is theirconcept of "customary law". This paper is an attempt to clarifythe meaning and scope of these sources mainly from some aspectsof the respective rules adopted in the 1998 Rome Statute. Itis also a continuance in this author's research on the sourcesof public international law.     

Reflections on International Judges and Their Decision-making: A Review Essay on Daniel Terris et al. (eds), The International Judge

In reviewing this valuable book, some reflections were givenconcerning nominations of candidates for judicial posts, aswell as on moral integrity of particular judges in the proceedingsbefore the International Court of Justice on South West Africa(Namibia) between 1950 and 1971. Paradoxically, the controversialJudgment of 1966 had some salutary effects on further developmentof rules of general international law.     

Consolidation of Legal Principles on Maritime Delimitation: Implications for the Dispute between Slovenia and Croatia in the North Adriatic

The legal principles on maritime delimitation have undergonea consolidation in the cases of the International Court of Justiceand arbitral tribunals. This article describes this processand summarizes the current state of the principles and thenattempts to analyse their implications for the dispute betweenSlovenia and Croatia in the North Adriatic.     

比例责任在侵权法上的适用之检讨

传统的"全有全无原则"在处理新型侵权案件之时,难以平衡加害人和受害人的利益,比例责任作为"全有全无原则"的补充则能较好地平衡加害人和受害人的利益。比较法上,主要是在责任成立阶段,通过引入概率因果关系理论,结合损害的酌定,建构比例责任理论。我国侵权法上,比例责任还适用于责任范围的确定上,如多数人侵权"共同因果关系"案型,但是该层面的比例责任不宜扩展至单独侵权。两种类型的比例责任具有不同的教义学基础:前者的基础是《侵权责任法》的公平责任原则,其能在特殊案型中对因果关系和损害重新解释;后者的基础则是《侵权责任法》第12条。应当认识到比例责任有其适用范围和限度,其只能作为传统侵权的补充。产品侵权、医疗侵权、环境侵权和"共同因果关系"数人侵权是我国侵权法上典型的比例责任适用的案型,相关理论仍然需要进一步厘定。     

效力瑕疵合同的返还清算问题

针对效力瑕疵合同的法律效果,我国《民法典》确立了原物返还、价值返还和损害赔偿三个步骤的操作方法。价值返还的基础理论从早期"两不当得利独立请求权说""差额说"逐步发展为考虑牵连性的返还学说。就是否需要返还的认定,除了可归责于债权人的毁损不需要返还外,其他因返还义务人意志、过错和偶然风险导致的毁损都需要返还,偶然风险致损也存在回跳的可能性。就返还的标准而言,考虑到效力瑕疵合同的特殊性,"主观标准说"并不具有正当性,应当重新回到"客观标准说"。因为受领给付而获得的利益,在返还义务人明知瑕疵事由的情况下需要返还。返还义务人因为受领给付而自愿支出的必要费用、在债权人获益范围内支出的有益费用和因固有风险所遭受的损害也可以要求偿还。不同的效力瑕疵规定具有不同的规范目的,应当区分强制秩序规范和传统私法规范,前者可能对价值返还产生影响,后者原则上并不会介入价值返还中。