论反致与我国国际私法的立法

反致制度是国际私法领域中一项重要的也是颇具争议的制度。它的产生源于各国冲突规范的差异，是在适用冲突规范选择准据法的过程中产生的。本文沿着“概念-历史-价值-立法”的途径进行探讨。首先，从处理国际私法案件的思路推导出反致的概念、类别。其次，从比较法的角度考察了反致的产生发展。最后，将反致置于我国国际私法的具体制度环境中，认为我国应当将反致作为一种法律适用的例外方式予以接受，并结合作者的理解给出了立法的建议。     

合理预见规则适用之研究

鉴于《合同法》第１１３ 条所确立的合理预见规则的适用在相当程度上有赖于法官、仲裁员的自由裁量,本文在探寻该规则追求意旨的基础上,分析了它的适用条件以及适用时应该考虑的要素;并在考察、比较不同国家相关立法、司法的基础上,提出我国在适用该规则时,对应否预见的判断应采用如下标准：区分通常情况和特殊情况,以通常情况为一般标准,以事先声明为特例,同时尊重既有司法惯例。     

行政判例价值分析及其实现

我国应该认同行政判例的制度价值,在行政法领域为判例留下可以适用的空间。目前宜采以最高人民法院确认来作为我国行政判例制度运行的模式,并在包括司法改革在内整个法治建设的框架内为行政判例制度的存在提供前提条件,以实现其与我国法律体系的兼容和协调。     

建立刑事判例制度的可行性研究

刑事判例作为一项制度在英关法系国家大放异彩,大陆法系国家和地区也利用其来完善自己的法律制度,在我国建立刑事判例制度具有可行性。我国有现行的法律依据;有判例法的传统;能够克服判例制度建立的障碍和具有建立判例制度的措施。     

判例法的借鉴与本土化--构建中国特色的先例参照制度

借鉴判例法来完善我国的司法体制是我国司法改革的趋势,应当构建中国特色的先例参照制度。先例的制定主体包括各级人民法院,先例具有参照的效力,法官具备区分技能是先例适用的前提条件,先例的更替不具有溯及力。     

行政判例制作中的法律解释

行政判例的法律解释是法院包括法官在制作行政判例时就需要明确的法律问题所作的说明,以期对后来的案件予以约束指导的活动。为了维护法制的统一性,保证法制改革的有序进行,创制行政判例的主体应该只限于最高人民法院。法律解释最终归宿点应该以判例这样的载体出现。行政判例制作中除一般法律解释方法的应用外,还有构成性、合法性、合理性、利益衡量等具有行政法特点的法律解释方法。     

Legal Transplantation in the Judicature: Employing Foreign Laws in China’s Judicial Practice

For wholly domestic cases, when there are no suitable domestic provisions and similar precedents, the courts in some countries will directly incite relevant foreign legislations or precedents. While in China, never before had its judicature ever used foreign laws or comparative law to handle non-foreign cases. However, in recent years, with the gradual opening of China’s judicial area, its judicature also begin to use precedents of foreign and comparative laws.     

我国成文法体制下判例嵌入司法场域的机理

判例经由法律职业共同体的具体运用实践,正在全面且深刻地嵌入我国司法场域。这种嵌入过程或现象具有与域外判例实践所不同的独特机理。恰当把握这一机理需要突破域外以判例"效力"为核心的理论认识,转变为以判例"效用"为导向。这一机理包括嵌入形态、嵌入动力与嵌入主线三个方面。嵌入形态体现为判例智识性信息泛在形态向选择形态的转化;嵌入动力体现为判例自发性运用与建构性运用的耦合;嵌入主线体现为判例运用的组织意图对个体意图的吸纳。揭示这一机理不仅有助于加深对我国判例运用现象的认识,把握判例运用现象的特征和规律,从而有助于理性地建构和完善中国特色判例制度,同时也有利于促成判例运用成为一种惯常化的司法习性。     

罪刑法定视域中的刑法适用解释

The judicial interpretation of criminal law should be an application interpretation to individual cases that is guided by judges and participated by the prosecutor and the accused, for which the judicial judgment should be combined with the application of criminal law of specific cases, and the criminal precedents should be as a carrier. The Supreme People’s Court should change from the previous practices of issuing normative and abstract interpretation to the dual approaches of the interpretation of criminal law application through direct creation and indirect acknowledgement. Liang Genlin, Professor and Vice Dean of Law School of Peking University and as a visiting professor of University of Tuebingen (2001–2002). His main research focuses on criminal law and criminal policy, and his important publications include “On the Structure of Punishment”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume I, Criminal Policy: Standpoint and Category”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume II, the Arm of the Law: Expand and Limit”, “Liang Genlin’s Review on Criminal Policy, Volume III, Criminal Sanction: Manner and Choice”. Besides, he has also published over 40 discourses on criminal law and criminal policy since 1996.     

Precedents in Negotiated Decisions: Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement Negotiations

Initial random acts can be replicated and evolve into precedents, but precedents can also be built with strategic intent. Regardless of their origin, strategically applying a particular precedent or effectively refuting the relevance of a precedent can help a negotiator control decisions and achieve interdependent goals. The purposeful use of precedents has received little attention in the negotiation literature, even though using precedents can be a powerful negotiating tactic. In this study, we examine how past decisions became precedents that helped establish the Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement of 2014 (KAFTA). We further consider how precedents established through KAFTA later influenced trade negotiations with Canada, China, India, and Japan. Following an extensive literature review and field research, we developed a two‐dimensional matrix (precedent ownership and negotiator goals) to help guide negotiators both offensively (what I want from you) and defensively (what I don't want to give you). We conclude by proposing research to enhance our understanding of temporal issues in negotiation. No previous study within the negotiation literature has examined precedents empirically.