當(dāng)前位置：法律圖書館>>法治動(dòng)態(tài)>>期刊目錄>>《法學(xué)論壇》2012年第二期目錄與摘要

《法學(xué)論壇》2012年第二期目錄與摘要

http://m.cehavas.com　 2012-7-24 14:50:52　 來源：中國法學(xué)會(huì)網(wǎng)

1 、關(guān)于勞務(wù)派遣單位與勞務(wù)用工單位的侵權(quán)責(zé)任——兼論《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第34條第2款的適用  郭明瑞（山東大學(xué)法學(xué)院）;
【摘要】 勞務(wù)派遣單位與勞務(wù)用工單位的侵權(quán)責(zé)任是用人單位責(zé)任的一種特殊形態(tài)。采用勞務(wù)派遣用工方式時(shí),勞務(wù)用工單位責(zé)任的理論基礎(chǔ)為報(bào)償說,適用無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則。勞務(wù)派遣單位責(zé)任的理論基礎(chǔ)為控制理論,適用過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則。勞務(wù)派遣單位與勞務(wù)用工單位均為責(zé)任主體時(shí),用工單位應(yīng)先承擔(dān)責(zé)任,勞務(wù)派遣單位承擔(dān)與其過錯(cuò)相應(yīng)的補(bǔ)充責(zé)任。用工單位承擔(dān)全部責(zé)任后,可以向勞務(wù)派遣單位追償。勞務(wù)派遣單位雖不能以勞務(wù)派遣協(xié)議中有免除其責(zé)任的約定對(duì)抗受害人要求賠償?shù)恼?qǐng)求,但可以以此作為對(duì)抗用工單位追償請(qǐng)求的抗辯事由。
【Abstract】 The tort liability of the unit of labor dispatch and labor employment is the special form of the employer liability. The liability of the unit of labor employment is no-fault liability and the theoretical basis is the risks and benefits should belong to the same person. The liability of the unit of labor dispatch is fault liability and the theoretical basis is the control theory. When the unit of labor employment and the unit of labor dispatch are both the liability subject, the unit of labor employment should bear the liability first and the unit of labor dispatch will bear the supplementary liability according to his fault. If the unit of labor employment bears all the liability, he can recourse to the unit of labor dispatch. Although the unit of labor dispatch can’t defense the damages requests of the victim with the waiver liability article in the labor dispatch agreement, but the unit can defense the unit of labor employment by the waiver article. 更多還原
【關(guān)鍵詞】 勞務(wù)派遣； 勞務(wù)用工； 補(bǔ)充責(zé)任；
【Key words】 labor dispatch； labor employment； supplementary liability；
 
2 、共同危險(xiǎn)行為爭議問題探析  葉金強(qiáng)（南京大學(xué)法學(xué)院）; 
【摘要】 共同危險(xiǎn)行為屬于責(zé)任者不明型共同侵權(quán),其與份額不明型共同組成客觀共同侵權(quán)之類型。此類共同侵權(quán)中連帶責(zé)任的正當(dāng)化基礎(chǔ)為可能因果關(guān)系,故當(dāng)行為人證明自己的行為與損害間不存在因果關(guān)系時(shí),便可免于承擔(dān)責(zé)任。共同危險(xiǎn)行為制度同樣可以適用于無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任領(lǐng)域。共同危險(xiǎn)行為與共同過失型共同侵權(quán)的區(qū)分,主要看行為人是否具有共同過失,共同過失表現(xiàn)為基于一致的行為安排而作出一定行為,而該行為中含有可預(yù)見并可避免的致害可能性。
【Abstract】 The joint dangerous act belongs to the joint tort where the person liable can’t be determined. The joint dangerous act and the joint tort where the portion of liability can’t be determined together constitute the type of objective joint tort. The possible causation justifies joint and several liability in the objective joint tort, so one who adduces evidence to prove that there is no causation between his behavior and the damage could be exempted from liability. The system of joint dangerous act also applies to the area of liability without fault. The distinctions of joint tort between the joint dangerous act and the joint negligence mainly depend on whether actors are common negligence. That tortfeasors’ conducts where it is possible to foresee and avoid the damage are based on consistent behavior arrangements characterizes the joint negligence.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 共同危險(xiǎn)行為； 連帶責(zé)任基礎(chǔ)； 免責(zé)事由；
【Key words】 joint dangerous act； the base on joint and several liability； excuse for exemption；
 
3 、產(chǎn)品責(zé)任中生產(chǎn)者和銷售者之間的不真正連帶責(zé)任——以《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第五章為分析對(duì)象  高圣平（中國人民大學(xué)民商法律科學(xué)研究中心）;  
【摘要】 在產(chǎn)品責(zé)任中,生產(chǎn)者和銷售者之間雖然存在不真正連帶責(zé)任關(guān)系,但該不真正連帶責(zé)任區(qū)別于傳統(tǒng)意義上的不真正連帶責(zé)任。在我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中,該不真正連帶責(zé)任是立法者有意選擇的價(jià)值調(diào)整工具,具有不同于傳統(tǒng)不真正連帶責(zé)任的新特質(zhì)。生產(chǎn)者和銷售者之間的不真正連帶責(zé)任存在內(nèi)部追償權(quán),具有價(jià)值緩沖作用。僅從《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的現(xiàn)有規(guī)定來看,這種內(nèi)部追償權(quán)是一種新的權(quán)利,而非讓與請(qǐng)求權(quán)或法定賠償代位。
【Abstract】 In the context of product liability law, there’s unreal joint and several liability between the producer and the seller.However,it is different from the traditional unreal joint and several liability. Under the Tort Law of China(TLC),the unreal joint and several liability between the producer and the seller is intentionally stipulated to adjust the value, and has the characteristics beyond the traditional one. It exists the right of recourse between the producer and the seller. This right of recourse has the function of value buffer. In the context of TLC,this right of recourse is a new-born right, not the transfer of a claim nor statutory subrogation of compensation.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 產(chǎn)品責(zé)任； 不真正連帶責(zé)任； 連帶債務(wù)； 追償權(quán)；
【Key words】 product liability； unreal joint and several liability； joint and several liability； the right of recourse；
 
4 、侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任的現(xiàn)實(shí)類型  張平華（煙臺(tái)大學(xué)法學(xué)院）; 
 
【摘要】 侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任可分為"一般類型"和"特殊類型"。《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》上的一般侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任以共同侵權(quán)為中心,而特殊侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任的適用范圍則變動(dòng)不羈。全面考察侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任的現(xiàn)實(shí)類型,可以發(fā)現(xiàn):一般侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任不限于共同侵權(quán),還可基于合同或"侵害行為直接結(jié)合"而生;特殊侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任是政策衡量的產(chǎn)物,可廣泛適用于控制危險(xiǎn)致害、提供場所者責(zé)任、懲治掛靠經(jīng)營、提升信用者責(zé)任以及獨(dú)立責(zé)任之衡平等場合。 更多還原
【Abstract】 Joint and several liability in tort law can be separated to general and special type. The general type in Chinese Tort Liability Law centered on joint tort, and the scope of special type changes unruly. If research the actual type thoroughly, we will find that the general type is not only joint tort but the joint liability based on contract or concurrent act, and the special type can be used to control danger, the liability of management place supplier, the liability of credit enhance and the equitable of independent liability.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任； 現(xiàn)實(shí)類型； 一般； 特殊；
【Key words】 joint and several liability in tort law； actual type； general； special；
 
5 、中國企業(yè)赴美并購的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及其防范對(duì)策  劉俊海（中國人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院）; 
【摘要】 中國企業(yè)在赴美并購過程中總存在著各種各樣的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。中國國有企業(yè)赴美并購時(shí)應(yīng)高度重視美國的國家安全審查機(jī)制,清晰地突出國有企業(yè)的商事主體性質(zhì)。而美國外資委員會(huì)引入聽證會(huì)程序,應(yīng)充分聽取中國投資者的意見,放棄投資保護(hù)主義。中國企業(yè)要熟悉美國的公司并購規(guī)則與治理規(guī)則,明確目標(biāo)公司選擇符合本公司及其股東利益最大化的收購要約而并非現(xiàn)金出價(jià)最多的要約,是美國公司并購的常態(tài)。中美雙方加快雙邊投資保護(hù)協(xié)定的談判進(jìn)程,就企業(yè)的國有化條款而言,應(yīng)采取充分的市場化補(bǔ)償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我國政府鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)赴美并購,可將核準(zhǔn)制改為備案制。要加快建立健全海外投資糾紛的仲裁機(jī)制,提高我國仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)的國際競爭力。
【Abstract】 There are various legal risks in the process of Chinese M&As in USA.Chinese state-owned enterprises should pay great attention to national security censorship in USA,and demonstrate their commercial entity feature.CFIUS introduce to the hearing process,should accommodate the opinions of Chinese investors, and abandon investment protectionism. Chinese corporations should learn American legal rules of corporate governance and M&A,Choice the offer that conform the interest of target corporation and its chareholders,not the offer that highest bid in cash.US and China should accelerate the process of the negotiation of bilateral investment treaty,and establish the compensation at fair market value.Chinses goverment should encourage Chinese corporation to mergers and acquisitions in USA,abolish the approval policy while introducing registration policy, and to strengthen the international competitiveness of Chinese arbitration bodies.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 公司并購； 國家安全審查； 法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)； 法律對(duì)策；
【Key words】 M&A； national security censorship； legal risks； legal strategy；
 
6 、中國企業(yè)赴美國上市的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和對(duì)策  邱永紅（深圳證卷交易所法律部）;  
【摘要】 隨著大量中國企業(yè)赴美國上市,與之相關(guān)的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)問題也逐漸暴露。當(dāng)前,中國企業(yè)在美國上市的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)主要包括集團(tuán)訴訟風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、證券違法違規(guī)處罰風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、退市風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、做空風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和中介機(jī)構(gòu)欺詐風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。因此,中國企業(yè)赴美上市應(yīng)充分了解、熟悉和掌握美國資本市場的相關(guān)法律和監(jiān)管要求,并完善公司治理結(jié)構(gòu)、內(nèi)部控制和信息披露制度,以及提高應(yīng)對(duì)集團(tuán)訴訟的能力。
【Abstract】 With many Chinese companies seeking to get listed on the U.S.securities markets in recent years, relevant legal risks have gradually emerged.Currently,major legal risks that Chinese companies face include collective litigation risk, on-compliance punishment risk, delisting risk, short-position risk and intermediary institution fraud risk. Chinese enterprises listed in the United States should be fully aware、 familiar and master the requirements of the legal and regulatory relating with U.S.capital markets, improve the system of corporate governance structure, internal control and information disclosure, as well as improve the ability of responding to class action suits.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 美國上市； 法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)； 集團(tuán)訴訟； 退市；
【Key words】 listing on the U.S.securities markets； legal risks； collective litigation； delisting；
 
7 、企業(yè)海外并購的國家安全審查風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及其法律對(duì)策  賀丹（北京師范大學(xué)法學(xué)院）;  
【摘要】 國家安全審查是對(duì)企業(yè)海外并購影響最大的貿(mào)易保護(hù)措施。近年來,數(shù)個(gè)國家對(duì)其外資監(jiān)管法律進(jìn)行了修改,其共性是建立或完善外資并購國家安全審查制度。這種對(duì)國家安全審查的關(guān)注和強(qiáng)調(diào)已經(jīng)成為中國企業(yè)海外并購所面臨的最大法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。從國家安全審查的法律實(shí)踐中可見兩個(gè)明顯趨勢(shì):國家安全概念的擴(kuò)張與審查過程中政治考量因素的增加,但中國企業(yè)應(yīng)將政治風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與政治因素轉(zhuǎn)換為法律層面的問題,合理進(jìn)行并購申報(bào),并通過東道國訴訟程序、WTO規(guī)則、雙邊投資保護(hù)協(xié)定等多種法律手段維護(hù)自身利益,減少貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義對(duì)海外并購的危害。
【Abstract】 National security review is one of the trade protection measures which will make greatest impact on the overseas acquisition. In recent years, several countries had amended their foreign regulatory law, common feature of which is to establish or improve their national security review institution of foreign acquisitions. This concerns and stressing of national security review has become the biggest legal risks faced by Chinese enterprises in their overseas mergers and acquisitions. Two distinct trends can be seen in the legal practice of national security review: expansion of the national security concept and increase of political considerations. However, Chinese enterprises should adopt legal measures such as reasonable acquisitions notice, the judicial review of the host country, the WTO rules, Bilateral Investment Treaty and other legal means to safeguard their own interests, to reduce the hazards of trade protectionism to overseas mergers and acquisitions.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 海外并購； 國家安全審查； 法律對(duì)策；
【Key words】 national security review； overseas acquisition； legal countermeasures；
 
8 、重思民事責(zé)任能力與民事行為能力的關(guān)系——兼評(píng)我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第32條  楊代雄（華東政法大學(xué)法律學(xué)院）;  
【摘要】 民事責(zé)任能力在本質(zhì)上是廣義民事行為能力的一種,與狹義民事行為能力即法律行為能力并列,它是當(dāng)事人對(duì)其過錯(cuò)行為承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任的法律前提。廣義民事行為能力概念具有深厚的歷史根基,我國民法學(xué)者對(duì)其進(jìn)行批判是因?yàn)閷?duì)其歷史脈絡(luò)缺乏了解。民事責(zé)任能力的認(rèn)定應(yīng)采抽象標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與具體認(rèn)定相結(jié)合主義。我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第32條存在諸多缺陷,應(yīng)通過法律解釋或修訂予以完善 。
【Abstract】 In essence, capacity for civil liability is a kind of capacity for civil disposition in the broad sense. As a premise for the party to bear the liability for his wrongful conduct, capacity for civil liability is different from capacity for civil disposition in the narrow sense which is called capacity for legal transaction. The concept of capacity for civil disposition in the broad sense has a deep historical root that remains unknown to Chinese scholars who criticize this concept. Capacity for civil liability should be judged by Abstract criteria and sometimes should also consider concrete factors relating to intelligence of the party. There are several defects in article 32 of The Tort Law of PRC that should be perfected through revision or legal interpretation.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 民事責(zé)任； 責(zé)任能力； 過錯(cuò)能力； 民事行為能力； 侵權(quán)責(zé)任法；
【Key words】 civil liability； capacity for liability； capacity for wrong； capacity for civil disposition； tort law；
 
9 、司法判決過程中的道德論證  許娟（中南民族大學(xué)法學(xué)院）;  
【摘要】 當(dāng)非理性民權(quán)表達(dá)充斥司法判決之時(shí),勢(shì)必要澄清和闡明司法判決過程中的道德論證,勢(shì)必要在柔性實(shí)證主義(分離命題)和吸納性整體闡釋(統(tǒng)一命題)之間交往商談,從這個(gè)意義上說,道德是可以論證的。在司法判決現(xiàn)實(shí)情境之下,道德論證在大前提論證中起到經(jīng)驗(yàn)論證、非實(shí)證和非經(jīng)驗(yàn)論證兩項(xiàng)作用。
【Abstract】 When irrational civil rights expression occupy judicial decision, is bound to clarify and to clarify the moral argument in the process of judicial decisions, is bound to discuss the interaction between the flexible positivism and absorbing whole explanation. In this sense, morality is arguable. Under the realistic scenarios of judicial decisions, the moral argument play two roles including experience demonstrated, on-empirical and non-experience, demonstrated in the premise of the argument.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 道德論證； 權(quán)利話語； 理性論辯； 程序；
【Key words】 moral argument； rights discourse； rational argument； program；
 
10 、英國憲政的精髓:議會(huì)主權(quán)與司法獨(dú)立相結(jié)合的憲政體制  李棟（中南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)法學(xué)院）; 
 
【摘要】 英國作為創(chuàng)建近代憲政制度的開路先鋒,既沒有成熟的憲政模式可資借鑒,也缺乏系統(tǒng)的憲政理論以供指導(dǎo)。然而,英國憲政卻在實(shí)踐中運(yùn)行順暢、效果良好,并在總體上表現(xiàn)出平穩(wěn)性與實(shí)用性的特征。造成這一現(xiàn)象的根本原因在于,議會(huì)主權(quán)與司法獨(dú)立相結(jié)合的憲政體制。前者關(guān)乎國家的內(nèi)政、外交及其國家治理,通過不同權(quán)力之間的配置制約王權(quán);后者關(guān)乎社會(huì)秩序與正義,通過特殊的"技藝?yán)硇?,以看似頑固不變的改良方式維持著對(duì)于任何專斷權(quán)力的制約。
【Abstract】 As a pioneer in modern constitution system, the constitution of England has neither the political model to learn, nor the wonderful constitution theory to guide.However,it runs smoothly and gets good effect in practice, of which has the feature of stability and practicality in general. The root cause is the combination of parliamentary sovereignty and independence of the justice. The former restrict royal power by the different power configuration, thus it has the close relation with the country’s internal and foreign affairs and national governance. While the latter relates to the social order and justice, which constantly constraint any arbitrary power by a special "Artificial reason".
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 英國憲政； 議會(huì)主權(quán)； 司法獨(dú)立；
【Key words】 the constitution of england； parliamentary sovereignty； independence of the justice；
 
11 、社會(huì)法學(xué)派的法律發(fā)現(xiàn)觀及其啟示  張志文（重慶大學(xué)法學(xué)院）;
【摘要】 社會(huì)法學(xué)派的法律發(fā)現(xiàn)觀主要從目的、利益與法律的"自由"發(fā)現(xiàn)、返回司法"實(shí)際"的法律發(fā)現(xiàn)、司法的實(shí)用性與規(guī)則的虛無性三個(gè)角度來詮釋的。與其我們掩耳盜鈴式"發(fā)現(xiàn)法律",不如坦白承認(rèn)法官造法之于司法公正的意義。"發(fā)現(xiàn)"是"創(chuàng)造"的源泉,而"創(chuàng)造"是"發(fā)現(xiàn)"的延伸。
【Abstract】 Legal Finding in law of society thinks purpose and interests could influence the free finding of law. The practicability of justice and nihility of rule also is the starting pointing of free law finding. Judges’ creating law is very important for the judicial justice. Finding law is the source of creating law, and the latter is the extension of the former.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 法律發(fā)現(xiàn)； 法律創(chuàng)造； 社會(huì)法學(xué)；
【Key words】 legal finding； cresting law； law of society；
 
12 、行政行為附款新探  李壘（浙江大學(xué)法學(xué)院）;  
【摘要】 行政行為的附款包括條件、期限、負(fù)擔(dān)、負(fù)擔(dān)保留以及廢止保留等類型。信賴保護(hù)在行政行為變更或消滅中是重要的考量因素,但信賴保護(hù)對(duì)于附款行政行為是否依然適用則依附款類型的不同情形而異。比例原則是判斷附款是否違法不當(dāng)?shù)闹匾獦?biāo)準(zhǔn),其不僅在附款形式的選擇方面,而且在附款的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容方面,都有其具體的運(yùn)用。當(dāng)附款違法時(shí),相對(duì)人最有效的救濟(jì)方式,應(yīng)是提起課予義務(wù)之訴,請(qǐng)求法院依據(jù)附款違法類型采取不同的權(quán)利保護(hù)方式;而不是以附款與主行政行為是否可分為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來決定是否采取單獨(dú)撤銷附款之訴的權(quán)利救濟(jì)方式。
【Abstract】 The subsidiary constrains in administrative law includes conditions,period,burden,reserved burden and reserved abolition. Reliance protection plays an important role in considering about changing and eliminating administrative action.However,whether the reliance protection can be still applied to the administrative action with subsidiary constrains depends on the variety of subsidiary constrains. The proportionality principle is an important standard in determining if subsidiary constrains is illegal or improper. What’s more, this principle is adopted specifically in two respects: the form selection of subsidiary constrains and the substantial content of subsidiary constrains. When subsidiary constrains are illegal, for private party, the most effective way of relief is to take a proceedings of appealing to obligations and request court take corresponding remedies according to the variety of illegal subsidiary constrains rather than take a proceedings of separate revocation based on the standard of whether subsidiary constrains can be separated from main administrative action. 更多還原
【關(guān)鍵詞】 行政行為； 附款； 比例原則； 信賴保護(hù)； 課予義務(wù)之訴；
【Key words】 administrative action； subsidiary constrains； the proportionality principle； reliance protection； the proceedings of appealing to obligations；
 
13 、論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的私權(quán)屬性——關(guān)于“知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的公權(quán)化理論”的置疑  于志強(qiáng)（中國政法大學(xué)民商經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)院）;  
【摘要】 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)與其他民事權(quán)利一樣具有私權(quán)的屬性。知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的私權(quán)屬性區(qū)別于其他民事權(quán)利而有其特殊性,以至于有些學(xué)者在不否認(rèn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的私權(quán)屬性的前提下提出了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的公權(quán)化理論,并試圖用該理論來解釋一些知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)面臨的新問題。知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的公權(quán)化理論是對(duì)私權(quán)理論的一種錯(cuò)誤的解讀,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的私權(quán)屬性不會(huì)也不可能改變或者會(huì)具有雙重屬性。
【Abstract】 Intellectual property and other civil rights as a private right. Private attribute of intellectual property has its particularity different from other civil rights, some scholars put forward the theory of public rights of intellectual property without denying private attribute of intellectual property under the premise and try to explain some new intellectual property problems on this theory. The theory of public rights of intellectual property is a kind of wrong interpretation on the theory of private rights of intellectual property, private attribute of intellectual property will not and cannot be changed or has the dual attributes.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)； 公權(quán)化； 私權(quán)性；
【Key words】 intellectual property； public right； private right；
 
14 、食品安全非監(jiān)管保障措施的引入與規(guī)制  隋洪明（西南政法大學(xué)經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)院）;   
 
【摘要】 針對(duì)我國食品安全事故頻發(fā),食品安全環(huán)境日益惡化等突出問題,絕大多數(shù)專家學(xué)者研究的結(jié)論是"監(jiān)管缺失",然而,沿此思路提出的對(duì)策和政府部門為加強(qiáng)監(jiān)管付出的努力并沒有取得明顯的成效。"三聚氰胺"、"毒大米"、"地溝油"等仍然暢通無阻地越過道道監(jiān)管關(guān)卡,通過各種渠道流向公眾的餐桌。因此,有必要反思"主流研究"的偏差,改變"監(jiān)管依賴"思維模式,加強(qiáng)非監(jiān)管機(jī)制研究,構(gòu)建企業(yè)自律、公眾參與、信用建設(shè)和信息傳遞等非監(jiān)管制度,彌補(bǔ)監(jiān)管制度的不足,走出食品安全監(jiān)管勞而無功的困境,塑造放心、健康、和諧的食品安全環(huán)境。
 
【Abstract】 In view of the problems of China’s food safety accidents occur frequently, and food safety environment worsen, mostly experts think the reason is "regulatory loss”. However, there is no obvious effect about the countermeasures of this thought, and the effort for strengthening the supervision."3 get together cyanogen amine" "poison rice" and "edible oils" is still could pass the supervision gate through various channels to flow to the public’s table,therefore,it is necessary to reflect on "mainstream" deviation, change "regulatory rely on" mode of thinking, strengthen the supervision mechanism research, to set up the business enterprise self-discipline, public participation, credit construction and information transfer and other the supervision system, make up the deficiency of the supervision system, enrich regulating security mechanism, out of food safety monitoring and the plight of one, building the rest assured,healthy,harmonious food security environment.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 食品安全； 非監(jiān)管； 保障措施；
【Key words】 food safety； outside government； security measures；
 
15 、食品安全立法技術(shù)的限度及其修正  余丹（中國計(jì)量學(xué)院法學(xué)院）;  
 
【摘要】 目前,食品安全立法技術(shù)是基于完全理性論基礎(chǔ)上制定的,這種立法理念是相信人擁有完全理性認(rèn)識(shí)能力,對(duì)一切事物采取正面看法,其立法技術(shù)特征是以"增進(jìn)善"為立法目的,因而在力圖表明技術(shù)指標(biāo)確定性的同時(shí),導(dǎo)致了片面性�？茖W(xué)哲學(xué)家波普爾、庫恩的有限理性論則認(rèn)為,衡量一種理論科學(xué)地位的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不是"可證實(shí)",而是"可證偽性"或"可反駁性",在此立法理念指引下的立法技術(shù)特征表現(xiàn)為:立法目的并不一定會(huì)"增善",但卻可以"減少惡"。因此,以有限理性論為分析視角,可修正立法技術(shù),使立法技術(shù)指標(biāo)不僅具有確定性,更具有全面性。
 
【Abstract】 The present, according to the absolute-rationalism, the lawmaking technology of food safety is set down, this lawmaking conception is that believe man hold the absolute-rational recognizing capability and treated as anything from obverse, which the character of legislation technology regard "increasing good" as the aim of lawmaking,therfore,the determinacy cause the one-sidedness at one time.Berpl and Kun,the scientist and philosopher, their limited-rationalism think that the rule of a theory science is not "conformable" but "fake-testified" or "contradicted”, which the character of lawmaking technology is that the aim of lawmaking is not to increase good but decease bad.Therefore,we can amend the legislation technology by the analysis visual of the limited-rationalism, which will made lawmaking technology not only the determinacy, but also the perfectibility.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 食品安全； 立法技術(shù)； 有限理性； 認(rèn)知范式；
【Key words】 food security； lawmaking technology； limited rationalism； cognize pattern；
 
16 、我國集體協(xié)商制度實(shí)證主義建構(gòu)的法哲學(xué)反思  曹燕（西北政法大學(xué)經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)院）; 
 
【摘要】 我國集體協(xié)商制度之所以未能實(shí)現(xiàn)和諧勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的規(guī)制功能,主要原因之一,在于其制度建構(gòu)的實(shí)證主義哲學(xué)觀使實(shí)現(xiàn)集體行動(dòng)合法化、體現(xiàn)勞資自治的"爭議權(quán)"在制度構(gòu)造上缺乏合法地位。雖然"爭議權(quán)"的行使可能引發(fā)法的正當(dāng)性與安定性之間的矛盾,但是,基于自然法的理論分析,"爭議權(quán)"的行使與維持勞動(dòng)關(guān)系穩(wěn)定的目標(biāo)并不沖突。在追求勞動(dòng)關(guān)系正義的基本宗旨下,通過拓寬集體交涉的法律途徑可實(shí)現(xiàn)爭議權(quán)在實(shí)證法上的合法地位。
【Abstract】 The major cause of collective negotiation syestem,based on positivism, failing to achieve harmonious labor relation is lacking of the collective bargaining power, which maybe leads to the labor law system conflicts. However, trough the natural philosophy analysis, the collective bargaining power does not come into conflict with the harmonious labor relation.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 集體協(xié)商； 爭議權(quán)； 實(shí)證主義法哲學(xué)； 自然法哲學(xué)；
【Key words】 conllective negociation syestem； collective bargaining power； legal positivism； nature philosiphy；
 
17 、被害人作證及其陳述的運(yùn)用  蘭躍軍（中國政法大學(xué)研究生院）;  
 
【摘要】 2011年國際貨幣基金組織前總裁斯特勞斯.卡恩性侵案經(jīng)過長達(dá)3個(gè)月訴訟后被撤銷,凸顯了被害人作證及其陳述證據(jù)效力的特殊性。被害人和證人雖然都"身臨其境",目睹了犯罪事實(shí)的發(fā)生過程,但被害人還"身受其害",這決定了被害人作證與證人作證既有共同點(diǎn)又存在許多重大差異,二者不能混同。被害人的當(dāng)事性要求立法從作證適格性、傳聞證據(jù)規(guī)則、意見證據(jù)規(guī)則、任意性規(guī)則、關(guān)聯(lián)性規(guī)則及合法性規(guī)則六個(gè)方面對(duì)被害人陳述的證據(jù)能力進(jìn)行合理限制;同時(shí)規(guī)定被害人陳述原則上不能作為定罪的唯一根據(jù),其證明力需要補(bǔ)強(qiáng)。
【Abstract】 Although the victim and witness are all immersed, witnessed the facts of the crime occurrence process, but the victim suffers its pollution "is”, this determines the victim to testify and witnesses both similarities and differences, there are many major. Both cannot mix business with pleasure. The victim of the parties from testifying comfortable sex requirement legislation lattice, Hearsay rules, Opinion evidence rules, Arbitrariness rules, Relevance rules and legitimacy rules Six aspects to the victim statements evidence ability reasonable limit, Also stipulates that the victim as stated in principle cannot be the only according to conviction, The proof strength need fill strong.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 被害人作證； 被害人陳述； 證據(jù)能力； 證明力；
【Key words】 victim to testify； victim statement； admissibility； probative；
 
18 、罪刑相適應(yīng)原則在解釋論中的貫徹  陳洪兵（南京師范大學(xué)法學(xué)院）; 
【摘要】 罪刑相適應(yīng)不僅是立法原則,還是解釋論應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的重要原則,對(duì)構(gòu)成要件的解釋具有重要的指導(dǎo)作用。堅(jiān)持嚴(yán)格區(qū)分法條競合與想象競合犯,固守"本法另有規(guī)定的,依照規(guī)定"表明只能適用特別法的先前理解,總是指責(zé)立法存在缺陷,必然導(dǎo)致罪刑不均衡的刑法條文比比皆是的現(xiàn)象。我們應(yīng)當(dāng)果斷摒棄先前錯(cuò)誤的理解與做法,在解釋論中最大限度地貫徹罪刑相適應(yīng)原則,充分運(yùn)用競合論原理"從一重處斷",以實(shí)現(xiàn)刑法的公平正義。
【Abstract】 Suiting punishment to crime is not only legislative principle, but also principle of interpretative theory. It is an important guiding role of the interpretation of constitutive requirements. Previous understanding that is Sticking to different strictly overlap of articles of law from imaginative joinder of offenses usually cause imbalance of crime and punishment. We should prohibits decisively the previous understanding and adapt the principle of suiting punishment to crime in interpretative theory in maximum scale for realizing fairness and justice of criminal law.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 罪刑相適應(yīng)； 解釋論； 競合； 從一重處斷；
【Key words】 suiting punishment to crime； interpretative theory； concurrence； choosing felony and giving severe punishment；
 
19 、從認(rèn)知思維到情動(dòng)思維——裁判思維客觀過程之研究  李可（東南大學(xué)法學(xué)院）; 
【摘要】 認(rèn)知思維與情動(dòng)思維是司法過程中前后相繼的兩種思維方式,它們?cè)谛纬刹门薪Y(jié)果的機(jī)制中行使著不同的職能,并且前者在裁判中必然要向后者發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)換。但是,法官必須對(duì)此種轉(zhuǎn)換之程序、原則和結(jié)果予以合理性論證,否則,易遭受裁判恣意之詬病。
【Abstract】 There are two thinking ways of cognitive and feeling that are end to end in judicial process, which exercise different functions in the mechanism of formation judicial result.Furthermore,the former converts inevitably to the latter during judgment. But a judge had to rationality this kind of conversion of the procedures, principles and results, otherwise is liable to suffer this denounce of unbridled judgment.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 認(rèn)知思維； 情動(dòng)思維； 司法裁判； 合理性論證；
【Key words】 cognitive thinking； feeling thinking； judicial adjudication； rationality；
 
20 、司法社會(huì)工作概念的缺位及其補(bǔ)足  何明升（華東政法大學(xué)社會(huì)發(fā)展學(xué)院）; 
【摘要】 近年來,我國的司法社會(huì)工作相當(dāng)活躍,不僅在青少年、禁毒和社區(qū)矯正這三個(gè)主要分支領(lǐng)域取得了令人矚目的實(shí)踐成果,而且也厘清了各分支學(xué)科的概念和邊界。但是,作為總和概念的司法社會(huì)工作稱謂,卻仍然是混沌不清的。這種分支概念清晰與總和概念混沌并存的狀態(tài),反映了司法社會(huì)工作在不同實(shí)踐領(lǐng)域的分立狀態(tài)。理論上的滯后尤其是概念的缺失是需要盡快彌補(bǔ)的。為此,在梳理和對(duì)比國內(nèi)外司法社會(huì)工作的實(shí)踐邏輯、價(jià)值取向和工作理念基礎(chǔ)上,提出了一個(gè)歸納性定義:司法社會(huì)工作是一個(gè)由特定價(jià)值理念與實(shí)踐邏輯所決定的復(fù)合系統(tǒng),社會(huì)工作機(jī)構(gòu)及其從業(yè)人員與司法機(jī)構(gòu)在其中相互依托,面向罪錯(cuò)者、受害人以及相關(guān)利益人中的受助者,通過充分發(fā)展其全部潛能而推動(dòng)社會(huì)變革、改善人際關(guān)系和促進(jìn)問題解決。
【Abstract】 Recently justice social work in China is very active, which not only achieves the significant practices in the fields of the youth, drug and community correction, but also clarifies the identification and the boundary.However,as the total concept, the justice social work is called nebulously. The situation of coexistence reflects departed states of justice social work in various fields. The theoretical lag, especially the lack of the concept need recuperated as soon as possible.Therefore,this article concludes and compares the practical logic, value tendency and working ideas home and abroad. It tries to give the concept, which is that justice social work is a complex system determined of a specific value idea and the practical logic. The Social work organizations and the employees rely on each other towards Crime wrong persons, victims and recipients in the inter-benefits. Finally they can promote the social innovation by fully development of all potentials and improve interpersonal relationships and promote problem-solving.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 司法社會(huì)工作； 概念； 實(shí)踐邏輯； 價(jià)值取向；
【Key words】 Justice social work； concept； practical logic； value tendency；
 
21 、論票據(jù)單純交付轉(zhuǎn)讓的效力  董翠香（山東大學(xué)法學(xué)院）; 
【摘要】 我國票據(jù)立法并未明確規(guī)定票據(jù)單純交付的效力,理論界主流觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,票據(jù)只能通過背書方式轉(zhuǎn)讓,不能以單純交付方式轉(zhuǎn)讓。傳統(tǒng)票據(jù)法理論同時(shí)認(rèn)可票據(jù)背書與單純交付轉(zhuǎn)讓的效力,世界各國和地區(qū)票據(jù)立法均認(rèn)可票據(jù)單純交付的效力,我國司法實(shí)踐也普遍承認(rèn)票據(jù)單純交付轉(zhuǎn)讓的效力。我國《票據(jù)法》應(yīng)當(dāng)明確規(guī)定票據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)讓方式及空白票據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)讓方式,承認(rèn)票據(jù)單純交付轉(zhuǎn)讓的效力。
【Abstract】 The validity of transferring bills without endorsement isn’t stipulated in our law of bill. The major academic view believes that bills can only be transferred with endorsement.However,the validity of transferring bills with and without endorsement are both recognized in traditional theories of bill transferring. Many other countries acknowledge the validity of transferring bills without endorsement, so does our judicial practice.Therefore,the methodology of transferring bills(includes blank bills)should be accurately legislated by the law of bill,where as the validity of transferring bills without endorsement needs to be recognized.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 票據(jù)背書； 票據(jù)單純交付； 無記名支票； 空白票據(jù)；
【Key words】 endorsement； transfer bills without endorsement； non-signature check；
 
22 侵權(quán)債權(quán)在破產(chǎn)程序中的優(yōu)先受償順位建構(gòu)——基于“給最少受惠者最大利益”的考量  林一（華東政法大學(xué)研究生院）;  
【摘要】 破產(chǎn)法的公平理念以及侵權(quán)債權(quán)的非自愿屬性,決定侵權(quán)債權(quán)具有從現(xiàn)行破產(chǎn)法所規(guī)定的普通破產(chǎn)債權(quán)中分立出來,并優(yōu)先于一般交易債權(quán)受償?shù)恼��?dāng)性�；�于侵權(quán)債權(quán)類型化以及羅爾斯的公平的正義理念——給最少受惠者最大利益,侵權(quán)債權(quán)在區(qū)分人身侵權(quán)債權(quán)和財(cái)產(chǎn)侵權(quán)債權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)上,應(yīng)做以下受償順位安排:破產(chǎn)費(fèi)用和公益?zhèn)鶆?wù)之外,人身侵權(quán)債權(quán)——工資債權(quán)和社會(huì)保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)用——?jiǎng)趧?dòng)補(bǔ)償金債權(quán)——財(cái)產(chǎn)侵權(quán)債權(quán)——國家稅收——一般交易債權(quán)。人身侵權(quán)債權(quán)甚至有可能優(yōu)先于擔(dān)保債權(quán),如果擔(dān)保債權(quán)的設(shè)立發(fā)生于人身侵權(quán)債權(quán)產(chǎn)生之后。社會(huì)強(qiáng)制責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)用債權(quán)視其保障范圍可以先于人身侵權(quán)債權(quán)或財(cái)產(chǎn)侵權(quán)債權(quán)。
【Abstract】 It is reasonable that a tort claim separates from the general unsecured credit of bankruptcy and has priority over a consensual credit in the bankruptcy distribution, which is determined by the principle of justice in the bankruptcy law and the character of the involuntariness of tort creditors. Base on the categorizing of tort claims and a theory of justice created by John Rawls – giving the most benefits to the lest beneficiary, tort claims would be separated into the physical tort claim and the property tort claim, and be liquidated, after the costs for bankruptcy proceeding and community liabilities being repaid in priority, according to the following distribution sequence proposal: the physical tort claim-the salary claim and the social insurance premiums-the labor compensation claim-the property tort claim – the tax fee – the unsecured consensual credit. The physical tort claim even may be prior to the secured claims if it occurred before the secured debt being engaged. Social compulsory liability insurance premiums may have precedence over the physical tort claim or the property tort claim which is decided by the scope it covers.
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 公平的正義； 類型化； 優(yōu)先受償順位； 人身侵權(quán)債權(quán)； 財(cái)產(chǎn)侵權(quán)債權(quán)；
【Key words】 The theory of justice； categorization； priority sequence； the physical tort claim； the property tort claim；
 
 

日期：2012-7-24 14:50:52 | 關(guān)閉 |  分享到：