证券市场虚假陈述侵权责任因果关系的认定

由于证券交易的特殊性,如何判定被告虚假陈述行为与原告损失之间存在因果关系,是证券市场虚假陈述民事赔偿案件的难点,也是长期困扰理论界与实务界的一大难题。借鉴美国普通法和证券法对因果关系的规定,我国最高人民法院对虚假陈述因果关系的认定做出了具体规定。该规定对于减轻投资者的举证责任,维护其合法权益具有重要积极意义。但是,该规定还仍然存在一些问题,有待进一步完善。     

Why criminal harms matter: Plato’s abiding insight in the Laws

Commentators have contested the role of resulting harm in criminal law since the time of Plato. Unfortunately, they have neglected what may be not only the best discussion of the issue, but also the first—namely, Plato’s one-paragraph discussion in the Laws. Plato’s discussion succeeds in reconciling two, seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints that till now have been in stalemate. Thus, Plato reconciles the view, that an offender’s desert is solely a function of his subjective willingness to act in disregard of the legitimate interests of others, with the view that criminal sentences can appropriately be made to depend upon how indignant, angry, and upset society is at an offender based upon the results of his culpable conduct. In doing so, Plato casts light on retributive theories of punishment by suggesting that an adjudicator can be committed to retribution and yet rightly believe that it is inappropriate to give an offender the full punishment he deserves. He also lays a basis for the view that causation, rather being predicates for the just punishment of offenders toward whom the public is intuitively angry for harm, is the consequence of the public’s being intuitively angry at offenders for harm.

Complicity and causality

This paper considers some aspects of the morality of complicity, understood as participation in the wrongs of another. The central question is whether there is some way of participating in the wrongs of another other than by making a causal contribution to them. I suggest that there is not. In defending this view I encounter, and resist, the claim that it undermines the distinction between principals and accomplices. I argue that this distinction is embedded in the structure of rational agency.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Anno 2013: Reframing The Comparative Method's Seminal Statements

This review article examines the ways in which QCA is being (re)framed by some main authors in the field, in a context of expansion and diversification of this approach and set of techniques. Charles Ragin's seminal The Comparative Method (1987) is first synthetized in the form of eight statements which are then confronted to eight recent book‐length publications: three QCA textbooks and five methodological volumes also touching upon QCA. On the whole, it appears that most statements have been considerably refined, both conceptually and technically, whereas only one statement is not taken on board anymore. In addition, QCA is being reframed and extended in different ways beyond Charles Ragin's initial statements.     

英联邦国家医疗侵权诉讼中因果关系之证明及评价

在因果关系的证明上,英联邦国家司法总体上贯彻了法律与科学有别、司法者与医学专家有别的观念。传统的因果关系证明规则在医疗诉讼中面临挑战和困境。在寻找解决此类困境的方法中,举证负担转移方法因其操作生硬、对传统规则的过于颠覆以及可能对医学、医疗诉讼和医疗保险产生不良影响而未能在英联邦司法中获得普遍认可;风险的实质性增加方法和机会丧失视为损害的方法能否适用于医疗侵权案件尚未得到确定。与前些方法相比,因果关系的推断在英联邦司法中获得了较大程度的认可。该方法的优势在于弹性强、对传统规则的偏离较为缓和且充分利用了法庭的事实认定过程。它进一步增加了法院的自由裁量,减弱了对医疗专家意见的依赖。     

知情同意诉讼中的证据学:英美法的观察

在传统的医疗过失侵权诉讼中,为了体现行外人士对医疗这一专家型行业的尊重,医疗专家证言在诉讼中发挥着重要的甚至决定性的作用。知情同意诉讼,虽被归入医疗过失侵权诉讼,却提供了一个不同于传统的医疗领域——诊断治疗——的情景。知情同意的独特性改变了专家证言在诉讼中的格局。在知情同意诉讼中,医疗专家证言的参与度和重要性遭到削弱。以患者为取向的信息披露标准的建立意味着法律的关注点已从"专家"整体转移到"患者";对"医学判断"所管辖领域的精细分割也说明,医疗专家证言只应在证明医疗信息的感知和启用"医疗特权"上有应用价值,医疗信息的实质性判断已让位于一般人知识,而且对"医疗特权"的严格控制会缩减医疗专家证言的适用空间;因果关系的认定和选择影响到医疗专家证言和患者证言的地位变化,尽管存在"事后诸葛"效应,为了与知情同意法则之主旨相匹配,主观化的因果关系应是前进方向。     

《民法典》第584条(违约损害赔偿范围)评注

《民法典》第584条为有关违约损害赔偿范围的规定,可从事实因果关系和法律因果关系两个视角进行分析。事实因果关系视角下,应注意区分履行利益、信赖利益和返还利益。在因解除而发生的违约损害赔偿的计算中,应注意履行利益和返还利益的关系,避免重复计算。违约损害赔偿范围的决定中,确定性问题位于事实因果关系层面,是事后判断;而可预见性问题位于法律因果关系层面,是事前判断。若涉及确定性问题,确定性问题的探讨应在可预见性问题之前。     

《反垄断法》私人实施之难题及其克服:一个前瞻性探讨

我国反垄断法的私人实施面临受害人数众多,原告资格难以确认,被告违法行为难以证明,损害赔偿数额难以计算等诸多难题,而竞争文化的缺失,法律工具主义的流行,可能使私人实施反垄断法变得更为困难。将反垄断诉讼之原告限定为直接受违法行为影响的人,以反垄断执法机关或法院作出了被告违法的有效决定或判决作为受理案件的条件,实行因果关系推定原则,统一规定损害赔偿数额的计算方法,重视竞争文化的培育和传播,可有效地克服这些困难。     

损害赔偿法的重新构建:欧洲经验与欧洲趋势

近年来,欧洲各国针对损害赔偿法采取了不同形式的修订工作,主要趋势体现在:责任认定运行按比例责任分担,规定一般条款,明确保护的法益范围,重点规定因果联系中复杂问题,过错标准,违法性要件的地位,不作为责任的认定,扩大雇主责任范围,企业责任日益严格,危险责任地位不断提高,针对侵权责任设定必要的限制参考因素。