Addressing diversion effects

Alan Wertheimer argues that those who promulgate principles of research ethics have a responsibility to take into account the diversion effects of those principles. In this commentary, I argue that Wertheimer''s proposal that diversion effects should be considered when promulgating principles of research ethics makes sense, but it often may be best to deal with these effects once a principle has been accepted and implemented, rather than focusing on them at the outset.     

Literal Meaning: Semantics and Narrative in Biblical Law and Modern Jurisprudence

The modern conception of the ``Rule of Law'' entails government bylaw not men, and takes law to consist in rules known in advance. Thislatter characteristic assumes that, for the most part, the meaningof such rules is unproblematic (Hart's ``core of settled meaning''), this usually being understood as a function of ``literal meaning''.A quite different model exists in the Bible: the early rules display``oral residue'', and their meaning, I argue, is constructed in``narrative'' rather than ``semantic'' terms: instead of asking:``what situations do the words of this rule cover?'', we shouldinquire: ``what typical situations do the words of this rule evoke?''.Moreover, courtroom adjudication was not the norm, and its originalform was not based upon the application of written rules but ratherupon judicial discretion taken to have been divinely inspired. Isuggest that modern jurisprudence still retains traces of such earlierconceptions, in its account of modern law: despite their differences, both Hart and Fuller make use of narrative constructions of meaning,and Kelsen ultimately prefers the authority of the judge to the correctness of the rule he purports to apply.

     

Explaining the Role of Restrictive Rules in the Postreform House

Abstract Four competing explanations have emerged regarding restrictive rules in Congress. Informational theory claims that rules reduce information costs and facilitate committee specialization. The distributional perspective suggests that rules enforce legislative bargains and help members achieve gains‐from‐trade. Another claim is that rules increase the Rules Committee's independent influence over policy. Lastly, partisan theory asserts that rules are used to increase the majority party's influence over policy. Abstract This analysis tests these claims during the 97th, 98th, 104th, and 105th Congresses. The findings demonstrate that theoretical constructs developed in earlier analyses of special rules are not robust over time and across legislative contexts. The results refute majoritarian assertions that rules are used as informational devices. Similarly, little evidence supports the claim that Rules Committee preferences independently affect rule assignment. Instead, a partisan principal‐agent framework emerges as the most useful construct to explain procedural choice in the postreform House.     

Reforming the Criminal Evidence System in China

Since 1997, China has proposed to reform the judicial system. In 2007, China officially set its goal of judicial reform as to “establish a Socialist Judicial System with fairness, efficiency and authority”. Now that the goal of judicial reform has been firmly established, the key question is how to accomplish that goal. One view advocates achieving judicial reform through administrative measures. A different path, which we proposed, is to accomplish the goal of judicial reform through reinforcing the construction of evidence system. Through analyzing the current law and investigating some judicial cases, the study found that the main reason for issues of judicial unfairness and corruption in current China is due to neglect of the construction of evidence system, and the current evidence rules contain too many problems, and the aforementioned problems have become a bottleneck for China's judicial reform and an important reason for China to reconstruct the whole evidence system. Therefore, in the long run, it would be ideal for legislature to promulgate a unified code of evidence law, but it is an extremely difficult task to coordinate the relationship between evidence law and three major procedural laws. In the short term, the most feasible compromise is to have the Supreme People's Court promulgate People's Court provisions on Evidence. After repeated test through the trials, we believe that such a unified People's Court provisions on Evidence will dramatically improve the evidence system and promote judicial fairness and the reform of legal education in China.     

网络服务商共同侵权制度之重塑

网络服务商共同侵权(间接侵权)制度是影响网络版权秩序最重要的法律规则。在这一领域,美国式的安全港规则居于统治地位。十几年来的网络版权实践表明,安全港规则不合理地降低了网络服务商的注意义务,损害了网络服务商预防第三方侵权的积极性,使得网络盗版泛滥。为了克服安全港规则的制度缺陷,美国和中国的法院被迫限制适用红旗标准或策略性地适用引诱侵权和替代责任规则,结果过度扭曲了网络间接侵权规则。为了改变这一现状,中国在修改著作权法时应当果断地放弃美国式的安全港规则,恢复侵权法一般规则的适用,强化网络服务商的注意义务。     

Are ethics promulgations self-defeating?

Alan Wertheimer argues that promulgating some ethical standards of international clinical research may be self-defeating: the intended purpose of these standards is to promote the interests of subjects and communities in LMICs, while the outcome of promulgation could be to undermine these very same interests. If enforced, such standards would increase the costs of performing beneficial research in LMICs, potentially diverting opportunities to participate in this research away from those who have no other access to the care participation allows. I argue that these standards are really intended as deontological constraints protecting subjects from being exploited by research sponsors. First, I show that Wertheimer begs the question against this deontological interpretation of ethics promulgations, rejecting it on non-deontological grounds. I go on to show that non-exploitation is an important goal on its own, sometimes independent from—and sometimes even outweighing—the goal of promoting the interests of subjects and communities in LMICs. I conclude by suggesting that those who criticize the promulgation of non-exploitation on the grounds that exploitative practices help those badly off might do best to reconsider the background assumption that sponsors in wealthier countries have no pre-existing obligation to promote the interests of the world''s poor.     

论法人人格权

团体人格是用作区分团体有无民法上独立财产主体地位的纯法律技术工具 ,既无社会政治性 ,亦无伦理性。人格权是一个历史性概念 ,其保护的是专属自然人人格所具有的那些伦理性要素 ,不能以同等含义适用于团体人格。法人的名称权、名誉权等权利无精神利益 ,实质上是一种财产权 ,且不具有专属性 ,非为任何团体人格存在之必须 ,故法人无人格权。     

The Political Origins of English Private Law

The article seeks to explain the emergence of the view that English law contains a fundamental divide between public and private law. I propose to explain the divide, not as a conceptual distinction, grounded in the internal rationality of law, but as a response to the potential problem of political legitimacy arising from the fact that in the domain of private law courts are constantly engaged in making substantive law. That by itself shows that the divide between public and private law is politically motivated, but I further argue that the prevailing view of law among proponents of the divide revives Dicey's conception of the common law within the narrower domain of private law. Since Dicey's views are widely believed to be motivated by his political views, if I am right, this lends support to the conclusion that the views of defenders of the divide are grounded in similar political positions.     

Tactical Balancing: High Court Decision Making on Politically Crucial Cases

This article advances a new account of judicial behavior: the thesis of tactical balancing. Building on existing models of judicial decision making, the thesis posits that high court justices balance a discrete set of considerations—justices' ideologies, their institutional interests, the potential consequences of their rulings, public opinion, elected leaders' preferences, and law—as they decide important cases. Variation in a high court's balancing of those considerations as it decides different cases leads it to alternate between challenging and endorsing the exercise of government power. The way in which high courts carry out this “tactical balancing” reflects their broader strategy for prioritizing the different roles they can play in a polity, and thus has significant implications for the rule of law and regime stability in developing democracies. The thesis is illustrated through a detailed analysis of the Brazilian high court's rulings on cases concerning crucial economic policies (1985–2004).     

Operation ‘Cerberus Action’ and the ‘Four Corners’ Prosecution

There is a generally accepted belief that a well publicised prosecution, which results in the conviction of the offenders will deter crime by sending out a ‘clear message’ to those intending to offend. Those who seek to enforce the legal protection of antiquities and archaeological sites will often decry the number of prosecutions brought, and urge a more aggressive prosecution policy against looters and traffickers in antiquities. However a prosecution may not always produce the anticipated outcome of deterrence. In this article a lawyer examines a recent high profile operation undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Land Management against looters and traffickers in the south west of the United States for breaches of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and its outcome. It will begin with a short consideration of the context in which the prosecutions were brought: the scale of looting in the area; the difficulties facing those who have to enforce the law; the legal and historical background, and the belief of many in the area that they have a right to dig for artefacts and to collect or sell them. It will then consider ‘Operation Cerberus Action’ and its consequences in some detail, drawing on contemporaneous newspaper accounts and blog comments to illustrate that a prosecution, even where it results in conviction of all the defendants, may be counterproductive, serving only to entrench existing attitudes rather than encouraging behavioural change in intending looters and traffickers.     

在法律真实与客观真实之间-论事实真伪不明案件的司法裁判规则

历史的不可回复性、案件证据的证明相对性以及法官认识能力的有限理性,决定了事实真伪不明案件的客观存在。法官不得拒绝裁判的司法规则要求法官对于事实真伪不明的案件必须作出处理,但是证明责任的滥用与事实推定的失范违背了司法裁判权的运行规律。要解决该问题,需要从改良事实认定模式、谨慎适用证明责任、认真对待经验法则等方面入手,构建良性互动的事实真伪不明案件的事实认定裁判规则,让司法裁判最大限度地获取社会公众认同。     

Norms,Institutions, and Institutional Facts

Norms explained as grounds of practical judgment, using example of queue. Some norms informal, inexact, depend on common understanding (‘conventions’); some articulated in context of two-tier normative order: ‘rules’, explicit or implicit. Logical structure of rules displayed. Informal and formal normative order explained, ‘institutional facts’ depend on acts and events interpreted in the light of normative order. Practical force of rules differentiated; either ‘absolute application’ or ‘strict application’ or ‘discretionary application’, depending on second-tier empowerment. Discretion can be guided by values, principles standards. Pervasiveness of institutions and institutional facts, especially but not only in relation to institutions of state-law, including constitution and state-institutions. Searle's and Ruiter's theories of institution, institutional fact, considered: ‘constitutive rule’ rejected in favour of ‘underlying principle’, structure of ‘institutive, consequential and terminative’ rules explained and defended. Ruiter's conception of ‘institutional’régime' considered and adopted, validity of norms and normative 'régimes' considered and differentiated from truth of statements of institutional fact.     

Simple monetary rules: many strengths and few weaknesses

This paper endeavors to examine the basic idea in Richard Epstein’s book Simple Rules for a Complex World. It does so by considering a specific simple rule which was explicitly designed for complex world. A basic idea in Epstein’s book is that the more complex is the world the better is the case for simple rules. To show this, he develops six simple rules pertaining to the rights of individuals, first possession, contracts, torts, government eminent domain and the power of taxation to provide public goods. This paper considers one rule rather than six rules, and it looks at monetary policy rather than policy in general. While the context is different, the case for simple rules made here provides a useful comparison with the case made by Epstein.

     

建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度--海牙《选择法院协议公约》述评

海牙国际私法会议于2005年6月所通过的<选择法院协议公约>系迄今为止国际社会在法院管辖权和外国法院判决承认和执行方面意义最为深远的一个公约.本文首先介绍了本文公约产生的背景以及公约的结构.之后,作者就公约中关于统一管辖权的规定进行了较为详细的评述被选择法院行使管辖权的权利和应该行使管辖权的义务、未被选择法院不行使管辖权的义务以及临时保护措施不受公约约束的例外规定.关于公约中所规定的外国法院判决的承认与执行制度作者从六个方面进行了探讨承认与执行外国判决的一般义务、承认与执行外国判决的例外情形、不审查与事实认定、先决问题、损害赔偿问题以及承认和执行外国判决的法律适用问题.     

Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law

This article defends a set of exceptions to the general rule in tort law that a claimant must prove that a particular defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause of its injury on the balance of probabilities in order to be entitled to compensatory damages in respect of that injury. The basic rationale for each exception is that it provides a means of enforcing the defendant's secondary moral duty to its victim. The article further demonstrates that the acceptance of this set of exceptions does not undermine the general rule.     

Automatic Judgment and Reasoning About Punishment

Several studies provide evidence that judgments on punishment are influenced by variables that are more or less independent of guilt considerations. It is postulated that these so called extralegal variables, such as the victim’s reputation or outcome severity that occurs accidentally and without intention by the offender, in particular influence judgments that are made under restricted cognitive capacity (low processing depth). Two studies, using a vignette methodology, explore whether participants are able to correct the biasing influences of extralegal variables if they are motivated to elaborate their judgments under the most optimal conditions (high processing depth). Study 1 investigates the influence of victim’s reputation, and Study 2 the combined influence of victim’s reputation and accidentally occurring outcome severity under either low or high depth of information processing. Results show that the influence of extralegal variables can be corrected. However, corrections are either limited or excessive, and are sometimes even inappropriate.     

War for the Floor: Partisan Theory and Agenda Control In the U.S. House of Representatives

This article extends recent research on partisan agenda control in the U.S. House of Representatives to the issue of procedural control of the legislative agenda via special rules. In particular, we draw out a facet of cartel and conditional party government theories that has not been addressed in prior analyses: the simultaneous interrelationship between positive and negative agenda control. Using roll‐call data on two procedural matters—votes to order the previous question on a special rule and votes to adopt a special rule—over the 1953–2002 period, we found that, in the area of procedural control of the floor agenda, the majority party's amount of agenda control depends to a significant degree upon the party's homogeneity and power.     

Civil money penalties: procedures for investigations,imposition of penalties,and hearings. Interim final rule; request for comments

This interim final rule establishes rules of procedure for the imposition, by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, of civil money penalties on entities that violate standards adopted by the Secretary under the Administrative Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). We intend that this be the first installment of a rule that we term the "Enforcement Rule." The Enforcement Rule, when issued in complete form, will set forth procedural and substantive requirements for imposition of civil money penalties. In the interim, we are issuing these rules of procedure to inform regulated entities of our approach to enforcement and to advise regulated entities of certain procedures that will be followed as we enforce the Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA.     

警察任务法治化之困境及出路

警察任务在警察法治化构建过程当中的地位十分重要,《中华人民共和国人民警察法》第2条有关警察任务的规定在实际操作过程中明显过于宽泛,又受到政治因素的干扰,引起众多对于警察职责职权方面的争议,甚至在某种程度上造成警察在执法中进退两难的境地。警察任务如何执行,既关乎人民生命财产安全、社会秩序健全,更影响到国家在法治化建设进程中如何适当脱离"人治",入轨"法治"的转型。对此,需要通过对当前我国警察任务相关规定的拆解,分析时下警察任务所面临的现实困境,找到问题的根源,结合法治化进程明确警察任务的规范化途径。     

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。