人身侵权之债债权人在破产清偿中的优先权分析

在破产案件,特别是由大规模侵权引发的破产案件之中,人身侵权之债的债权人是否享有优先权是一个非常重要又颇具争议的问题。从优先权的价值取向、人身侵权之债的特殊性以及社会现实的需求等方面综合分析,人身侵权之债在破产中理应具有一定的优先性。从各国的司法实践来看,许多国家都对破产中的人身侵权之债给予了特殊保护,而且有越来越多的国家开始重视人身侵权之债的优先保护问题。     

论食品安全领域大规模人身侵权债权在破产程序中的清偿顺位

因食品安全事故导致的大规模人身侵权案件时有发生,且侵权企业有时会因面临巨额索赔而破产。由于侵权债权被列为普通破产债权在破产清偿顺位的末位受偿,这就导致大量的受害者无法得到充分赔偿,造成社会矛盾激化,严重影响社会的稳定和法律的正确实施,因此有必要重塑破产程序中大规模人身侵权债权的清偿制度。鉴于食品安全领域大规模人身侵权债权的内在属性和救济需求,笔者认为,可以使其优先于一般优先权和普通破产债权受偿,并采用固定比例优先规则处理其与物权担保债权的清偿顺序。     

侵权债权在破产程序中的优先受偿顺位建构——基于“给最少受惠者最大利益”的考量

破产法的公平理念以及侵权债权的非自愿属性,决定侵权债权具有从现行破产法所规定的普通破产债权中分立出来,并优先于一般交易债权受偿的正当性。基于侵权债权类型化以及罗尔斯的公平的正义理念——给最少受惠者最大利益,侵权债权在区分人身侵权债权和财产侵权债权的基础上,应做以下受偿顺位安排:破产费用和公益债务之外,人身侵权债权——工资债权和社会保险费用——劳动补偿金债权——财产侵权债权——国家税收——一般交易债权。人身侵权债权甚至有可能优先于担保债权,如果担保债权的设立发生于人身侵权债权产生之后。社会强制责任保险费用债权视其保障范围可以先于人身侵权债权或财产侵权债权。     

人身侵权债权在破产清偿顺位中优先受偿之思辩

在调整人身侵权债权的各种制度中,为人身侵权债权在破产清偿顺位中找寻优先清偿点是次优制度选择,因为无论人身侵权债权定位在哪一个清偿层面都是后序债权人为破产企业的非法行为买单。为此,在其他法律制度足以保护人身侵权债权人权益的前提下,在破产清偿顺位中为人身侵权债权人设置优先受偿权实属不必要。但是其他法律制度不足以保护人身侵权债权人的权益时,我们可以考虑在破产清偿顺位中采用将人身侵权债权与劳动者债权同序的方式来保护人身侵权债权人的合法权益。     

论第三人侵害债权的构成

传统观点认为，债务人以外的第三人不能成为侵害债权的主体。无论是合同之债，还是侵权之债，不当得利之债，无因管理之债，概莫如此。理由是：债权是一种相对权，其义务主体是特定人，即债务人。而对权利的侵害，是只有在相对应的义务主体违背其义务的情况下才有可能构成侵权。第三人既然不是债权的相对义务主体，当然也就谈不上违背义务而构成侵权，这是债权和物权最大的不同，同时也是民法将权利划分为物权和债权的目的所在c但是，理论归理论，在现实生活中，由于第三人的原因而使债权人的权利受到损害甚至无法实现的情况却是客观存在的…     

浅论侵权债权破产清偿顺序

破产清算是我国破产法规定的与重整、和解并列的三大破产程序之一,其最终目的是分配破产财产而分配顺序是决定企业破产财产最终归属的准则,尤其在破产财产不能清偿所有债权的情况下。现行破产法规定在破产财产清偿破产费用、共益债务及有担保债权后,按照劳动债权、税款、普通债权的顺序有比例进行清偿。然而,实践中却无法有效保护被侵权的普通债权人,因此有必要对这一顺序合理性进行探究。     

检察公益诉讼债权的破产保护问题研究

检察机关向侵权企业提起公益诉讼所形成的债权称之为检察公益诉讼债权，检察公益诉讼债权在破产程序中的权利性质争议较大，清偿顺位靠后,不利于公益诉讼目的之实现。正确定位检察公益诉讼债权在破产程序中的清偿顺位，需要厘清检察公益诉讼债权的价值定位以及与其他优先债权的比较问题。通过对检察公益诉讼债权主动移送破产审查，强调对人身权利益的优先保护，发挥破产重整优势，完善配套制度的构建等路径，促进检察公益诉讼制度与破产制度的衔接，实现社会公共利益最大化。     

破产程序中担保利益的保护及其限制

破产程序中的担保利益，包括担保债权和担保物权，是以破产债权的存在为成立前提、对破产债权起着担保作用的从权利。担保利益在破产程序中的法权地位，与普通情况下有着较大不同。在普通民事法律关系中，权利主体对主物权享有独占和排他的权利，对主债权享有全额受偿的权利，这是财产法权受保护的一般原则；而担保利益却总是处于从属和次要地位，是作为主权利的补充形式存在的。但在破产程序中，主权利（破产债权）是通过对破产财产的公平分配而实现的，受偿率一般较低，且在破产程序终结后，未得到清偿的债权不再清偿，这就决定了主权利相…     

论持续性侵权之债债权请求权诉讼时效的起算

持续性侵权行为是指对同一权利客体持续地、不间断地进行侵害的行为。因持续性侵权行为而产生的损害赔偿之债为持续性侵权之债。由于持续性侵权行为引起的损害会随着侵权行为的持续而不断增加,呈现出不断积累的特点,由此决定了持续性侵权之债债权请     

逃债案件中“以非法占有为目的”的刑事司法认定

本文结合刑事司法实践,对逃债案件中＂以非法占有为目的＂的司法认定作一初步探讨。一、逃债案件情况简要分析本文研究的＂逃债＂,是指在市场经济领域中无正当理由拒绝或逃避履行按照债权合同及行政合同（以下简称合同）形成的义务,[1]该债限指债权合同和具有经济交付内容行政合同之债,不包括物权合同、身份合同形成的债。     

论破产别除权的行使

别除权行使的前提条件,除了要符合合同法、物权法等民事法的一般规定外,还应符合破产法的特别规定。别除权应当按照物权法的具体规定来行使,而破产法所规定的破产债权行使的各项规则对其不具有强制约束力。     

Tort Law and Corrective Justice

This article offers arefutation of the corrective justiceinterpretation of tort law – the view that itis essentially a system of corrective justice. It introduces a distinction between primary andsecondary tort duties and claims that tort lawis best understood as the union of its primaryand secondary duties. It then advances twoindependent criticisms of the correctivejustice interpretation. The article firstargues that primary tort duties have nothingfundamentally to do with corrective justice andthat, if one understands what is meant by``primary tort duties,' one is compelledto regard this fact as a decisive objection tothe corrective justice interpretation. Second,it argues that, whatever relation thereis between secondary tort duties and correctivejustice, that relation also holds betweencorrective justice and secondary duties ofother legal branches. In sum, the concept ofcorrective justice is neither capable ofunifying tort law nor of demarcating it fromother legal branches.The article also offers a general alternativeinterpretation of tort law. Rather thanbeing essentially corrective, tort law isessentially protective. Under this picture, iftort law has a most important point, it is theprotection of legal subjects and valuablesocial interests from harm. This is theoverarching ambition that unifies primary andsecondary tort duties. It does not, however,demarcate tort law from other legal branches.     

新《破产法》的制度创新解读及其对商业银行债权的影响

新《破产法》是我国经济体制改革进程中的一部标志性法律，它的出台表明我国的市场经济发展到了一个新阶段。它为债务人、债权人、投资者、职工等主体提供了维护自己权益的法律依据；对商业银行而言，它在维护银行债权的同时也对银行债权带来了一些不利影响。因此，有必要对新《破产法》引进的新制度进行解读，并深入分析这些制度对银行债权的影响，以防范银行贷款风险。     

Moral theories of torts: Their scope and limits: Part I

One approach to legal theory is to provide some sort of rational reconstruction of all or of a large body of the common law. For philosophers of law this has usually meant trying to rationalize a body of law under one or another principle of justice. This paper explores the efforts of the leading tort theorists to provide a moral basis — for the law of torts. The paper is divided into two parts. In the first part I consider and reject the view that tort law is best understood as falling either within the ambit of the principle of retributive justice, a comprehensive theory of moral responsibility, or an ideal of fairness inherent in the idea that one should impose on others only those risks others impose on one. The second part of the paper distinguishes among various conceptions of corrective or compensatory justice and considers arguments — including previous arguments by the author himself — to the effect that tort law is best understood as rooted in principles of corrective justice. This paper argues that although the use of principles of justice may render defensible many (but by no means all) of the claims to repair and to liability recognized in torts, it cannot explain why we have adopted a tort system as the approach to vindicating those claims. Some other principle — probably not one of justice — is needed to explain why it is that the victims claims to repair is satisfied by having his losses shifted to his injurer — rather than through some other means of doing so. The paper concludes that the law of torts cannot be understood — in the sense of being given a rational reconstruction — under any one principle of morality.     

论海上侵权责任中的无过错责任原则

与一般侵权责任一样,海上侵权责任的归责原则是海上侵权责任的核心,而随着经济全球化的发展,海上侵权事故频发,尤其是大型船舶碰撞等造成的海洋环境污染或者海上危险品的运输所造成的人身财产损失等侵权行为的发生,简单地用过错责任进行规制已不符合现代社会的实际情况。通过对海上侵权责任中无过错责任原则的介绍,指出其适用范围,从而构建完整的海上侵权责任归责原则体系。     

Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix

For decades, federal regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices has worked hand in hand with state tort claims to protect the health and safety of the American public. Now, a new trend toward preemption endangers this scheme. In recent years, the Supreme Court has given increasing deference to agency assertions about their preemptive authority and has found preemption in an increasing number of cases. In the process, the Supreme Court has preempted claims for medical device injuries and left claims for pharmaceutical harms in a precarious position. The elimination of common law claims for drug and device harms will leave holes in the FDA's regulatory scheme, endangering the health and safety of Americans. It will also prevent ordinary Americans from seeking compensation for their injuries--even those injuries caused by manufacturer malfeasance. This Article proposes that Congress create a no-fault compensation scheme for drugs and medical devices to close these gaps. Such a scheme could be both practical and politically possible, satisfying manufacturers, tort reformers, patients, and plaintiffs' lawyers alike.     

Disability,Rights, and the Construction of Sexuality in Tort Claims

This study empirically investigates how courts define sexuality of disabled persons in the absence of a formal right to sexuality. The focus of the study is tort law, a field ungoverned by direct disability rights legislation, assuming that tort law is the law of disablement as it concerns the transformative process of becoming disabled. The study investigates the types of damages courts have awarded for harm to sexual functioning, inquiring to whom and under what conditions have they been awarded. Additionally, it examines the discourse that characterizes each type of damages, and the legal, social, medical, and healthcare policy developments that have affected courts' rhetoric and reasoning. Our findings reveal shifting trends in scale, content, and inclusiveness of beneficiaries in terms of gender and age. Over time, courts have adopted a more hopeful and dynamic approach to disabled persons' sexuality while remaining within an individual‐medical framework. We suggest that these shifting trends can be linked to the slow diffusion of the social‐affirmative approach to disability, the limits of tort law as a field, and the role of healthcare policy in shaping the landscape of tort claims.