加强我国农民工职业病防治工作的思考

我国现有两亿多农民工,且遭受不同程度的职业病危害,以致近年新发现的职业病人几乎是农民工,但他们却没享受法律规定的平等待遇,为此中央领导多次批示,要求制定有利于《职业病防治法》贯彻落实和职业病防治工作的制本之策。结合广西开展农民工职业病防治工作的实践,指出其6个方面的主要原因和防治对策。     

当前医患纠纷解决模式的法律与道德评价

我国医患纠纷的最终解决是通过传统的民事诉讼途径,然而,这种模式并不符合医疗案件本身的特点。从法律和道德的角度而言,我们必须对医疗诉讼的制度设计重新进行反思,并在此基础上进行变革。     

包医合同法律效力分析

虽然医疗行为存在多种风险与不确定性,但也不是所有的医疗行为都是不确定的。生活中经常有医方向患者承诺保证治疗效果的情形,从法律的角度来说,这时在医方与患者之间就形成了包医合同关系。论述了包医合同的性质及其法律效力。     

夫妻生育权平等的冲突及其法律思考

我国婚姻法规定夫妻双方均有生育权,但事实上生育的最后支配权往往掌握在女性手中,导致近年来发生了许多有关夫妻生育权是否平等的争讼案件,受到了社会舆论和法律界的广泛关注。夫妻生育权的地位应重新审视,当因夫妻生育权的平等而发生侵权冲突时,必须在侵权法上进行适当解决,以维系各种社会关系的和谐发展。     

《管子》与汉初法制重构

《管予》渊源于齐文化,法制思想以礼、法并重为特色,齐用之而为东方大国;秦用商、韩之法迅速强大并统一六国,但秦法严苛激进,任法而废礼,致秦二世而亡。汉承秦之弊,在历史与现实中寻求适合自己发展的道路,于偶然,也是必然中选择了礼法并重的《管子》法制思想作为治国方略,史称黄老政治,使国家逐步实现了稳定与繁荣,并开创了二千多年的秦汉制度。     

Priorities of Global Justice

One-third of all human deaths are due to poverty-related causes, to malnutrition and to diseases that can be prevented or cured cheaply. Yet our politicians, academics, and mass media show little concern for how such poverty might be reduced. They are more interested in possible military interventions to stop human rights violations in developing countries, even though such interventions – at best – produce smaller benefits at greater cost. This Western priority may be rooted in self-interest. But it engenders, and is sustained by, a deeply flawed moral presentation of global economic cooperation. The new global economic order we impose aggravates global inequality and reproduces severe poverty on a massive scale. On any plausible understanding of our moral values, the prevention of such poverty is our foremost responsibility.     

Global Distributive Justice

The paper discusses the problem of global distributive justice. It proposes to distinguish between principles for the domestic and for the global or intersocietal distribution of wealth. It is argued that there may be a plurality of partly diverging domestic conceptions of distributive justice, not all of which need to be liberal egalitarian conceptions. It is maintained, however, that principles regulating the intersocietal distribution of wealth have to be egalitarian principles. This claim is defended against Rawls's argument in The Law of Peoples that egalitarian principles of distributive justice should not be applied globally. Moreover, it is explained in detail, why Rawls's "duty of assistance to burdened societies" cannot be an appropriate substitute for a global principle of distributive justice.     

Are There Any Rules?

The ``model of rules' that Ronald Dworkin attacks is an absurdmodel of law, if rules are taken to be standards that have nounspecified counterinstances, and whose application isalways uncontroversial. Dworkin gives good reason to thinkthat there are no such standards or virtually none in (e.g.)English law. But the model of rules is not misconceived, asDworkin claims. Rather, it needs a better understanding of the idea of a rule. I argue that the view that the law of a community is a system of rules needs to meet an importantchallenge that Dworkin has raised for jurisprudence: to accountfor the fact that legal rights and duties are frequentlycontroversial. I give an account of social rules thatexplains why controversy over their application in particularcases is common, and can be deep. So controversy gives noreason to reject the model of rules.     

Citizens' Sense of Justice and the Legal System

When an actor commits a wrong action, citizens have perceptions of the kind of responsibility the actor incurs, the degree to which the act was mitigated or justified, and the appropriate punishment for the actor. The legislatively mandated law of criminal courts, statutes, and criminal codes deals with the same issues. Experimental evidence shows that there are important discrepancies between the principles that people and legal codes use to assign responsibility. That is, the moral retributive-justice principles that people use are sometimes in conflict with the directions in which modern code drafters are taking criminal law. These discrepancies may cause citizens to feel alienated from authority, and to reduce their voluntary compliance with legal codes.     

公民的两种身份及其道德要求

“公民道德”意义上的公民具有两种身份,一是法律身份,一是社会身份。不同的身份决定了对个体不同的道德要求。一般来说,这两种身份统一于一个具有完全责任能力的个体之中,不同的身份只能出现在不同的场合或者承载不同的社会关系,场合不同、社会关系不同,对他的道德要求就不一样,二者不能混淆,即身份是不能僭越也不能放弃。但是,两种身份的道德要求在底线上是一致,这就是说,两种身份的责任和道德要求在特定的场合和社会关系之中可以融通。