走出上级命令违法的困境——市财政局局长披诉案探析

各国通说认为,上级命令违法,公务员有不服从的义务,但我国公务员惩戒救济途径的不完善影响了该制度运作的可行性。因此,为使得公务员在面临服从上级命令义务与遵守法律义务相冲突这个两难选择时,有从这个困境中走出来的理性途径,需要理性地建构一个解决冲突的制度———公务员执行上级为刑法所禁止的命令时,责任自负;此外,如果命令采取书面形式下达,公务员应予执行,其责任由上级承担。     

国家公务员责任行政的实现途径——兼论权力腐败的规制

民主政治要求政府是负责任的政府,政府必须责任行政。责任行政的实现关键是对公务员进行有效规制。公务员是有双重身份的能动的人,公务员是否能够对民众负责,受内在和外在因素的影响和制约。与此相对,责任行政的实现有两个途径:一是引导公务员树立正确的伦理道德观,提高公务员责任行政的内在驱动力;二是通过完善法律制度建设,增强外部控制能力。     

公务员“法律责任”略论

在确定公务员法律责任的归属时,行政法学界不少学者持身份→行为性质→法律责任的观点.即公务员以个人还是国家机关代表人的身份名义进行活动,决定行为的不同性质,从而确定是个人责任或行政主体行政责任的不同归属.其理论缺陷在于无法解决:不以表明身份为前提的行为的责任归属;以及以公务员身份谋取个人不正当利益时法律责任的真正承担者.而且以主观的身份决定客观的行为性质,颇有意志决定论之嫌,也有悖于常理.而以客观的行为性质判断行为人的真正身份.从而决定法律责任的性质与承担者,即行为性质→身份→法律责任是解决公务员法律责任的正确思路.     

试论医疗机构及其医务人员的伦理困境与法律对策——以法定医疗伦理损害责任为背景

在医疗伦理损害责任背景下,医疗机构及其医务人员在具体履行医疗告知义务时、患者(特定情况下其近亲属)知情不同意时、以及面临具体法之局限性时,常常陷于对患者的知情权、生命健康权、自主决定权、乃至自身的法律责任风险进行个人抉择的伦理困境。尽管导致伦理困境的原因是多方面的,但从法律视角来看,制定明确、规范的医疗伦理行为指引,建立解决医疗伦理困境的常设机构,健全医疗风险规避、医疗社会保障和医疗伦理督察制度,应是现实可行的应对之策。     

社会工作实践中的伦理困境及解决对策

社会工作实践中的伦理困境起因于案主与社会工作者之间的价值或利益冲突、社会工作者多重角色利益的冲突、社会工作实践中的模糊性和不确定性等等。本文就这些伦理困境列举了相关的案例,并指出了伦理困境的成因和表现及其解决措施。     

我国行政伦理建设的困境与出路

目前我国正处于一个过渡时期,社会问题纷繁复杂,在政府执政和解决社会,人民群众的问题的过程中,存在着许多与伦理相关的问题,涉及到的行政伦理问题非常多。而在解决问题的过程中,行政伦理的建设是一个非常重要的因素,只有建立好符合伦理道德,符合法律,能让人心服口服的行政伦理,才能根据这样的伦理解决问题,才能使得社会的发展更加健康快速与全面,因此,我国目前行政伦理的建设困境,以及面对这些困境所应该找寻的出路,都应该被深入研究与探讨,为解决行政伦理的具体问题做出贡献。     

论行政道德法制建设

现在行政违法行为和行政失当行为屡见不鲜,出现这种情况的一个主要原因是行政主体行政道德意识薄弱,而且这种行为都是对公务员行政道德的违反,都应该承担行政道德责任,所以当前应该强调加强行政道德建设。本文认为,在着力进行教育和培训的同时还应进行法制建设,建立对行政主体的道德责任监控机制。行政道德法制建设的主要内容有:制定公务员行政道德规范并推进其法规化进程;完善公务员行政道德教育、培训制度;建立监督行政道德执行的专门机构等。本文主要论述最后一方面,提出建立公务员行政道德专员委员会的设想,并分析该机关与现有机关的协调,以达到各机关总体效益的最大化。     

需上级指示行政行为的责任——兼论需合作行政行为的责任

需上级指示行政行为的对外责任主体是下级机关。未经指示所作行政行为并非无效,而由下级机关及其公务员承担责任。上级指示有瑕疵的,一般应由上级机关及其公务员承担责任,但瑕疵明显重大而仍予执行的,上下级机关及其公务员应共同承担责任。下级机关拟作行政行为有瑕疵而上级机关未予纠正的,需依据下级机关对事实负责、上级机关对法律适用负责的原则分担责任。其他需合作行政行为的责任则应按对自己行为负责的原则分担。     

我国公务员队伍建设的伦理之维

公务员行政伦理建设在社会主义道德建设中占有非常重要的地位,它直接影响着社会风气的好坏,决定着社会道德水平的高低.因此,分析我国部分公务员行政伦理失范的现象,探究公务员行政伦理失范的成因,对我国公务员行政伦理建设大有裨益.     

对公务员行政协调的伦理思考

行政协调渗透于公务员的各种行政行为之中,对保障行政工作的平衡与稳定起着至关重要的作用。社会的快速发展以及各种行政矛盾的逐步显现需要公务员具有较强的行政协调能力与良好的道德素质,这意味着公务员在行政协调中要遵循一定的伦理原则。本文将伦理思想融入公务员行政协调之中,提出统筹兼顾的整体协调、科学务实的有序协调、灵活多样的动态协调、客观公正的依法协调和团结协作的沟通协调等建议,并分析了其中蕴涵的伦理原则,以期实现行政组织的良性运行。     

Issues in Anti‐Corruption Law: How Can Code of Conduct Laws Be Drafted in Order to Reduce Corruption in a Public Sector like Romania's

International organisations, like the UN and EU, have encouraged their Member States for years to increase civil servants' compliance with particular codes of conduct. Romania represents probably one of the most advanced countries in attempting to legislate on civil servant ethics through its Code of Conduct Law. Yet, the Romanian Code of Conduct Law possesses significant weaknesses, emanating both from the inherent difficulties of using hard law in a soft law area (like civil servants' ethics) and the Law's silence as to specific procedures, which government agencies should use in implementing the Law. Given these weaknesses, Romanian government agencies should adopt regulatory instruments that compensate for these weaknesses at the legislative level. In this paper, we present the provisions—particularly related to the establishment of agency‐level ethical doctrines—which regulatory drafters can use to implement these codes of conduct in a civil law system without running afoul of the basic requirements of civil law jurisprudence for clarity and predictability. We discuss the legal basis in Romanian administrative law for the elaboration of specific ethics‐related doctrines and the ways in which such a ‘doctrinal approach’ to administrative ethics can help achieve the objectives of the flawed Code of Conduct Law. We specifically discuss the ways in which Romanian governments can adopt such regulatory instruments and the types of provisions that should be included in order to help overcome the flaws of the Code of Conduct Law.     

中外防止公务员利益冲突制度之比较及启示

针对反腐败过程中出现的新情况、新问题,很有必要借鉴、学习国外防止利益冲突在立法方面的成功经验。本文从公务员利益冲突涉及的回避制度、兼职取酬制度、财产申报制度、禁止收受贿赂制度、岗位轮换制度、离职后的行为限制等主要方面进行了中外防止公务员利益冲突的制度比较。本文认为,借鉴发达国家在防止公务员利益冲突上的法律法规,可以弥补我国在防止公务员利益冲突方面的不足,从而使我国防止公务员利益冲突制度更加科学化和规范化。     

论涉外民事法律适用中的定性——兼评《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第8条

定性是国际私法理论研究和司法实践普遍关注的问题之一。我国《涉外民事关系法律适用法》虽然对定性作出了具体的规定,但由于各国学者对于定性的对象、范围以及定性冲突有着不同的认识,实践中很容易造成法官在涉外民事法律适用认识上的困难。从法学方法论意义讲,涉外民事裁判中定性的本质在于将案件事实与不同国家实体法进行比对的过程,其间贯穿着冲突规范连结点的解释以及相关国家法律对同一事实评价的利益衡量。就我国立法中有关定性问题的解释而言,法院地法应在国际私法语境下作广义理解。     

非法人组织在民事实体法和程序法上法律地位之冲突及协调

关于非法人组织(即公民、法人以外的第三民事主体)之法律地位在实体法和程序法上存在着诸 多冲突与矛盾。造成冲突与矛盾的原因之一,就是由于我们在民事实体法与民事程序法的理论 认识上存在着不一致。要消除二者之间的矛盾与冲突,就必须统一理论界的认识:一方面应赋予 某些非法人组织以民事主体资格和诉讼主体资格;另一方面,有必要对可以成为民事主体的非法 人组织的资格条件从构成要件方面加以限制。     

Associations between Parent and Child Reports Of Interparental Conflict/Violence And Child Difficulties in A Family Mediation Setting*

We examined the association between parents’ (N = 52 mothers and 52 fathers) and children's (N = 27) reports of interparental conflict and child difficulties in a family mediation setting. Parents’ reports of conflict were moderately associated with children's reports of exposure to parental conflict, but only fathers’ reports of conflict were associated with children's reports of negative responses to parent conflict. While mothers and fathers agreed on their child's difficulties, only mothers’, not fathers’, report of child difficulties were moderately related to child reports of child difficulties. Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of conflict generally were not strongly associated with reports of child difficulties. In contrast to parent reports, children's reports of exposure to parents’ conflict were moderately and significantly related to self‐reported child difficulties and moderately related to parents’ reports of child academic difficulties. The magnitude of the association between the child's report of interparental conflict and self‐report of difficulties was stronger than the association between parent report of conflict and parent report of child difficulties, suggesting that parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parent conflict/violence or the problems their child is experiencing.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Family law stakeholders prioritize the creation of parenting arrangements that are in the best interest of the child; however, it is unclear how to gather information about the child and the child's perspective in order to inform such arrangements.
• The study results suggest that parents may not agree with each other or with the child about important family issues, such as parent conflict and child difficulties. For example, parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parental conflict/violence when in the midst of custody negotiations.
• More research is needed to determine the best method for gathering information about the child during custody proceedings. In the meantime, it is important to gather information from multiple sources and to consider the agreement and differences across such sources of information.

     

Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life

A long‐standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as “projects” of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession–waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms–lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf. In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it? In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically–at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make?     

契约精神与民刑冲突的法律适用——兼评《保险法》第54条与《刑法》第198条规定之冲突

民刑冲突是法律冲突的表现之一,其困惑在于法律适用上的难以选择。总结民刑冲突现象有两种:一是涉嫌违法或犯罪的民刑交叉案件;二是合法与犯罪截然对立的民刑冲突现象。民刑冲突现象的产生原因关键在于平等的个体于内在理念上的冲突:即,民法的个人权利保护与刑法的社会利益保护的不同价值取向所至,也是契约自由与社会正义之间的冲突。“民法优先”是契约精神在民刑冲突的法律适用中的必然选择。实践中应具体考量社会公正、功利主义、社会效益、从严解释四个价值导向。     

论环境损害赔偿立法中的环境公益保护 --从环境民事公益诉讼的角度

环境民事公益诉讼制度,可以规定社会团体提起环境民事公益诉讼必须以其成员主张环境公益受损为先决条件;可以明确公权机关的诉权优先于公民或社会团体的诉权;可以将环境保护行政主管部门或者其他依照法律规定行使环境监督管理权的部门规定为法定提起环境民事公益诉讼的公权机关,将检察机关定位为监督和支持有关主体提起环境民事公益诉讼,对救济是否充分及时进行法律监督的机关.环境公益的民事救济应当采取以恢复原状、消除危险为主,以赔偿、停止侵害、排除危害为辅的方式,同时探索新的民事救济方式.环境民事公益诉讼中的赔偿对象可以确定为某种环境公益基金,该基金独立于政府,负责对环境公益的维护,并不限于受损的环境公益范围填补或增进环境公益.     

完善公务员责任追究机制——公务员依法行政的一个视角

我国公务员制度中责任追究机制的失灵严重影响公务员依法行政的水平和公共行政的有效性。公务员的多重身份导致其责任对象交叉,职责不明确导致责任相互推诿,权利义务不平衡导致责成其负责的法律依据不足,责任种类及追究方式的非法律化导致其容易规避责任等,制度缺陷是责任追究机制失灵的原因。因此,完善职位分类、平衡公务员的权利义务、明确责任种类并将追究方式法律化是完善公务员责任追究机制的必由之路。     

法院地国家国内法中的冲突规则与国际条约的关系

法院地国家国内法中的冲突规则和已对该国生效的国际条约中的冲突规则同属该国国际私法的渊源。多数国家的国际私法制定法均有优先适用国际条约中的冲突规则的规定,但其国际私法分则对国际条约中的冲突规则的处理方式则主要有三种不同的立法模式。在裁判涉外民事案件的实践中,实体法解决办法有别于冲突法解决办法,仅在案件不符合国际统一实体私法条约的适用条件的情形下,才能依法院地国家国内法的冲突规则确定准据法。涉外合同的双方当事人选择已对法院地国家和其他缔约国生效的国际条约并不等于选择了合同准据法。而如果涉外合同的双方当事人选择了尚未对法院地国家生效、但已对两个或两个以上其他国家生效的国际条约,则只能视为对无法律约束力的“非国家规则” 的选择。由于“程序问题适用法院地法”,涉外民事案件的程序事项既不适用冲突规则,也不适用实体私法规则。法院地国家国内法的冲突规则不会同国际条约中的国际民事程序法规则发生抵触。