“执行难”视域下公法人民事执行责任财产范围之厘清

在民事执行司法实践中,"执行难"问题的突出表现之一即是对以行政机关为代表的公法人的民事执行问题。而对公法人民事执行所面临的最大困难即在于对其责任财产范围的确定。应立足目前的立法和司法实践,以对公法人社会公共管理职能的正常行使及其所代表的社会公共利益的保护,与民事执行中债权人的私权实现相平衡作为价值选择的基点,明确对公法人预算资金、公用财产等执行的条件,厘清对公法人民事执行责任财产之范围,实现债权人利益和社会利益之间的平衡。     

论法人精神损害赔偿请求权的正当性

人格权的概念发端于罗马法时期,法人人格权制度得以确立在19世纪的德国.法人人格权以及精神损害赔偿的问题一直是一个值得争议的命题.当前,我国正处于经济和社会的转型发展时期,随着我国市场经济发展的不断成熟、权利意识的不断增强,对人格权的重视程度也越来越高.2009年12月26日,十一届全国人大常委会第十二次会议高票通过的《侵权责任法》,对公民民事权益进行了全方面、多层次、立体化的保护,尤其是首次立法明确公民的精神损害赔偿,堪称保护公民人身、财产权益的集大成者;然而,就是这样一部充满了人文关怀的法律,却将同样是民事主体的法人人格精神损害的赔偿问题遗忘在了“阴冷”的角落.     

中法法人犯罪刑事规制体系对比与借鉴

因为中法法人犯罪的刑事立法基于共同的功利主义动因,又采取相同的例外到原则的立法路径,使得两国法人犯罪刑事规制体系常常被认为具有高度相似性。然而,通过对中法两国关于法人主体资格、罪名范围、归责理论、刑罚配置的制度设计、理论解读和实践适用的比较研究,足以发现两国法人犯罪刑事规制的具体条文、基本原理和发展趋势都存在天壤之别。这些细节差异之处集中体现了中法两国法人犯罪刑事规制体系理论发展的不同重心和共同动向,对反思中国刑法单位犯罪的资格认定和立法技术具有重要借鉴价值。     

我国医院法人治理结构改革的探索

从分析我国医院法人治理结构模式入手,深入探索了医院法人治理结构中存在的问题,介绍和探讨我国产权和所有权改革的形式,并对上海和无锡的法人治理结构改革做了较详细的介绍,为探索我国医院建立适应市场经济体制的体制与机制提供借鉴和参考.     

日本《宗教法人法》管窥（下）

（三）三个重点日本《宗教法人法》内容很多,我认为其中三个方面值得重点研究,现分述如下。１、法人制度日本学者认为,《宗教法人法》是为了贯彻信仰自由和政教分离的原则,运用法律强制力,在宗教团体中推行法人管理制度,帮助宗教团体在不依附于任何外部势力的条件下,赋予其民事权利能力和民事行为能力,独立拥有、维持和管理财产的权利和义务。从而结束了日本宗教长期依附于国家政权而成为权力部门和政治集团附庸的历史。（１）法人制度的产生与作用。法人制度是现代社会的民事法律制度,法人是与公民（自然人）相对称的另一种民事主…     

后伯林自由观:概念辨析

本文旨在对以赛亚·伯林<两种自由概念>发表后西方政治哲学中关于自由概念与观念的争论作一综合评析.本文评介了麦卡勒姆的三要素自由概念,分析了哈耶克、阿伦特以及米勒等人对自由观念的划分,以揭示自由这一复杂的政治哲学概念的多重维度及其关联.     

知识点认知规律的实验研究

知识点是人的认知单位,人学习知识,必须以知识点为单位、逐个知识点地学习。本实验以概念学习为例,研究了人一次学习一个知识点与同时学习两个知识点时的成绩差异。研究结果表明,1. 在概念中的信息组块数不超过短时记忆容量的前提下,一次学习一个概念,构成概念的信息组块数对概念掌握影响不显著。2.在同样条件下,一次学习一个知识点的成绩好于同时学习两个知识点的成绩,从而验证了知识点认知规律。     

我国医院法人治理结构改革的探索

从分析我国医院法人治理结构模式入手,深入探索了医院法人治理结构中存在的问题,介绍和探讨我国产权和所有权改革的形式,并对上海和无锡的法人治理结构改革做了较详细的介绍,为探索我国医院建立适应市场经济体制的体制与机制提供借鉴和参考。     

关于儿童内包量概念发展的研究

自从Piaget等人提出对时概念的守恒性进行研究以来,对儿童比例概念形成的研究就成了儿童概念形成研究的一个热点,并积累了比较丰富的实验成果,提出了许多新的研究课题。近来,国外一些研究者又提出了对内包量概念进行研究。本文试就国内外关于内包量概念研究的主要取向、研究的一些新进展、内包量概念形成的实质等作一综合的介绍。     

论实践概念的三个层次

实践概念的含义在中西方都有一个逐渐演变的过程,在这一复杂的演变过程中,逐渐形成了实践概念的三个层次的含义:形上的实践概念、道德的实践概念和经验的实践概念.建议在今后的实践哲学讨论中,学者们对自己是在何种层次上使用实践概念要有明确的意识,并作出清晰的界定,反对像以往那样抽象的使用实践概念.     

Legal concerns of the pastoral counselor

The United States is increasingly becoming a legalized society wherein laws are determining what a pastor providing counseling can and cannot do. The pastoral counselor needs to be cognizant of which laws are helpful and which are restrictive in the counseling which he/she provides. This article was written to provide a beginning understanding of the following issues: confidentiality, privileged communications, clergy privilege, state licsensing and tax-exempt status. The issues of malpractice insurance and third party payments are also touched upon briefly.He is a minister of the United Church of Christ and a Diplomat of the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. His article is based on a lecture at the Denver meeting of the AAPC and is reprinted with his permission.     

司法论证充分性辨析

司法论证充分性问题是一个和法学理论与司法实践都密切相关的问题,各种关于法律论证的争议是和规则治理与纠纷解决两种司法职能的互相冲撞息息相关的。什么样的法律论证才是最合适的,在法律资源有限的情况下,如何运用有限的资源达到司法实践的目的,是各国法制建设的一个永恒话题。文章试图以我国的司法情景为例,从理性思考与现实实践两个层面,展示法官在裁决中所运用的具有地方性知识性质的辅助资源具有实践合理性,说明司法论证应该也必须追求其充分性。     

论选择性执法的法律规制——兼及“钓鱼式执法”的法律约束

选择性执法是行政主体应对复杂的社会情势和违法行为高度不均衡分布的一种手段。选择性执法具有权力性、不确定性和目的性特征,它在使行政主体获得高度的灵活性和行政效率,有利于完成行政执法任务的同时,也牺牲了法的稳定性和权威性,助长了行政执法中的机会主义,并鼓励人们守法上的投机心理和行为,不利于法治。应当对选择性执法持较为严格的态度,保证其执法目的的正当性,并采取具体的方法加以规制。     

Legal Practices and the Reason of the Law

Legal argumentation, like argumentation generally, occurs against a background of shared understanding and competence. This view, inspired by Kuhn's understanding of scientific reasoning, is in stark contrast to more traditional rule-following accounts of legal argumentation. Below I consider reasons to reject the more traditional view of legal reasoning in favor of a roughly Kuhnian account of legal reasoning and conclude by raising skeptical questions about the cogency of legal reasoning when the tacitly accepted background conditions that make it possible are not critically examined.     

浅析医务人员收受回扣的法律责任

在医疗服务过程中,医务人员收受回扣的行为较为普遍.根据其情节轻重可能要承担刑事责任、行政责任或相应的民事责任.伴随着一系列规定的出台,我国目前在该领域存在的诸多法律问题得以解决.在梳理相关规定的基础上,对现阶段仍然存在的一些残留问题作出分析.     

Explorations on the Notion of Legal Tolerance

This article builds on the notion of legal tolerance and analyzes the scope of its definition. It situates the notion in the complex set of relations occurring between the major systems of society. Generally, legal tolerance, as a concept, is understood in light of the possibilities of the legal system of influencing other major systems’ responses. On the other hand, tolerance is also the response of the legal system in respect to other major systems’ communications. Although there is a common understanding of tolerance as “under punishing bias” in criminology or as political tolerance in political science, ¹ 1. There is also a distinct field in political science, where the issue is political tolerance. In this view, political tolerance is defined as “Political tolerance typically refers to individual-level attitudes that permit groups to express opinions or maintain practices that a majority finds objectionable.” See Allison Harrell, The limits of tolerance in diverse societies: Hate speech and political tolerance norms among youth. Canadian Journal of Political Science 43 (2010), 407–432. See also C. W. Collier, A legal theory of tolerance and perspective. ARSP. Archiv. für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 84(1) (1998), 59–86. Still within criminology, an antonym for legal tolerance would be the notion of “Rationalité Pénale Moderne”; see Pires, Alvaro Pires, “Beccaria, l’utilitarisme et la rationalité pénale moderne,” in Christian Debuyst, Françoise Digneffe, Jean-Michel Labadie, and Alvaro P. Pires, eds., Histoire des savoirs sur le crime et la peine. Tome II : La rationalité pénale et la naissance de la criminologie, Première partie: “La formation de la rationalité pénale moderne au XVIIIe siècle,” (Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, De Boeck Université, 1998), chapter 3, 83–143. Collection: Perspectives criminologiques. the focus of this article is different. The central points here are, first, the analysis of legal tolerance as part of systemic communications and, second, the historicity of the transformations of the nation-state in its ability to cope with the growth of separate, distinct and partial systems of society. Tolerance seems relational and raises questions such as: “How much can the legal system tolerate?” And also, “Which societal topics belong to the social system's domain-matter?” These questions are relevant given that the concept of legal tolerance depends on the possibilities of a given system to steer, to direct or to influence other major systems’ behavior, or to resist, respond or to address other systems, which are in its environment.

The concept of legal tolerance requires an analysis of a cluster of related definitions to assess the implications of the concept. These definitions are the following: (1) The concepts that result from the historical process of structuration and that explain the emergence of social systems. (2) The definition of reflexivity and its relation with the “second order cybernetics dilemma.” This is the place where heuristic and epistemological problems are found. Such problems result from both the problem of representation and from the ontological status of the real. This analysis will show why reflexivity is a key concept to explaining the transformations suffered by such systems. Then, legal tolerance is a newer development in respect to the idea of planning. As an alternative to hard planning, legal tolerance creates a fostering environment. Instead of a single system directing other systems, legal tolerance is relational and created collectively by the organizational national state using its (limited) power of legal creation. Legal tolerance also stems from the concerned subsystems of the society (economy, law, politics, science, along with others) by means of a variety of legislative products, public policies, alliances, and legal and other scientific communications that emerge as coordinating mechanisms among the alluded major subsystems.     

Legal Audiences

This paper approaches legal argumentation from a rhetorical perspective. It discusses the nature of the audiences that are (and should be) targeted by judges in the legal process. Judicial opinions reach diverse groups of people with very different attitudes and expectations: other judges, lawyers, litigants, concerned citizens, etc. One important way in which these groups differ is that some of them are more likely to be persuaded by legalistic, precedent or statute-based arguments, while others expect judges to decide on grounds of justice or equity. So, judges face the challenge of determining whether they should select particular groups for special attention, or whether they have alternative rhetorical means to approach the problem of audience diversity. One strategy that is likely to be recommended by rhetorical scholars is that judges should not try to accommodate the various preferences of their actual readership, but that they should rather invoke an idealized audience or some version of Chaïm Perelman’s universal audience. However, the paper tries to show that the universal audience is of limited value for a discussion about how judges ought to proceed in the face of audience diversity. In particular, the idea of a universal audience does not help judges to make the choice between a legalistic or an equity-based approach to legal decision-making. By showing that this is so, the paper also raises doubts about the common thought that to invoke the universal audience in law is to appeal to natural law (as distinct from written, positive law).     

患者隐私杈的法学思考

结合法学理论、医疗实践和目前患者隐私权的法律保护现状,就侵权行为、民事责任的认定以及隐私权的限制等问题予以理论阐释,并提出了切实可行的保护措施,如建立健全相关法律法规、医务人员要增强法律保护意识等,以期为患者隐私权的保护提供有益的参考。