Corporations as Moral Agents: Trade-Offs in Criminal Liability and Human Rights for Corporations

This article argues that a common way of defending corporate criminal liability creates a dilemma: it provides a strong justification for giving human rights to corporations. This result follows from approaches to punishment and human rights which predicate each on the status of moral agency. In short, if corporations are moral agents in a sufficient sense to attract criminal liability, they are eligible holders of human rights. The article also discusses the doctrinal application of this philosophical claim. Drawing on US jurisprudence, it illustrates how the European Court of Human Rights might deploy corporate moral agency as a theoretical foundation for its otherwise weakly-reasoned attribution of human rights to corporations. If proponents of corporate criminal liability are dissatisfied with these conclusions, they face difficult policy trade-offs: they must abandon the doctrine, or adopt alternative approaches to punishment or human rights.     

组织进化视野下对企业刑事归责模式的反思

我国传统企业刑事归责模式的典型特征在于:一方面,其包含了企业和企业成员两个主体的归责,另一方面,企业归责适用的是以特定企业内个人犯罪行为为处罚根据的同一视原则。虽然该模式与我国早期单一科层制企业形态相适应,但随着组织形态的进化,企业规模扩大,内部权力去中心化以及组织结构复杂化,企业犯罪出现了不同于我国早期企业形态下新的特征。为此,传统企业归责模式不仅难以公正地对企业及其成员进行归责,还会造成组织无责、惩罚效果不理想等一系列不利后果。在法人社会下忽略对企业组织犯罪的控制需求并不现实,法人刑事责任拟制论应当被否定。相反,有必要构建与企业成员归责路径相分离的、以企业自身过错为处罚依据的组织责任模式。应当依据功能对等原则对组织责任模式进行构建,维持刑法体系的逻辑严谨性,并遵守刑法的罪责原则。     

效率与公平——严格责任在刑法领域运用中所体现的两种不同价值

严格责任是存在于英美法系国家的一项重要的刑法制度。它强调举证责任的转移,即检察官只需对犯罪行为的存在以及犯罪行为与被告的关系进行证明,而被告是否具有犯意的证明则交由被告进行。严格责任主要适用于侵犯公共福利犯罪。它是现代社会追求效率的产物,但其公平性却时常受到指责。     

From Manslaughter to Preventable Accident: Shaping Corporate Criminal Liability

This article looks at the assumptions, agendas, and relations of power that shaped Bill C-45, revisions to the Criminal Code of Canada aimed at strengthening corporate criminal liability. The Bill, passed in fall 2003, originated in response to the deaths of twenty-six workers at the Westray mine in 1993, a disaster caused by unsafe and illegal working conditions. Through an examination of Parliamentary Committee hearings, this article explores how conceptions of corporate criminal liability were shaped and modified, and links this to the implications and potential of Bill C-45 to hold corporations to account. The authors argue that conservative conceptualizations of corporate liability limited the reform options that were considered by the Committee, and that the resulting legislation will do little to challenge the structural conditions that underlie culpable workplace injury and death.     

基本刑事责任与派生刑事责任--澳大利亚视角

没有直接实施犯罪客观构成要件的行为,但对犯罪的实施起一定作用的人,可以构成从犯或次犯。根据一般规则,他们的责任是派生的,并从属于实施犯罪客观构成要件之行为者的责任。如果不加以限制,该规则就会导致一些极其无价值之无罪判决。为给那些甚至在直接实行行为人因某种原因不构成犯罪的情况下,间接地参与犯罪的人定罪,英国和澳大利亚法院都采用了一定的原则或者策略。有一些案件中的论理好象要否定一般规则,但大多数权威人士虽然接受一般规则,但却又劈出一块作为有限的例外。在英国法中,主要例外是无辜代理之例外。澳大利亚法院则更为慎用这一策略,而力求通过协作行为原则定罪。本文坚持认为,在某些案件中,追究刑事责任的一个更好的基础,是因果关系这一基础。导致一个无责任者实施犯罪客观构成要件的人,是主犯而不是次犯。除此之外,他们的刑事责任所要求之犯罪主观构成要件,是个犯或主犯所要求之主观要件,而不是次要主体之主观要件。     

事实因果与刑法中的结果归责

刑法的结果归责中,"归因—归责"二分说框架对归因的简单定位,扭曲了归因与归责之间的关系。由归因层面存在论基础的差异入手,有必要从支配与义务两大维度去把握刑法中的结果归责类型。除主流理论认可的造成型因果、引起型因果与义务型因果的类型外,由疫学因果与风险升高代表的概率提升型因果,应视为新的归责类型。应当引入类型思维,借助支配力、支配可能性与归责的有效性的参数,对结果归责的类型展开考察。区分不同的结果归责类型在规范层面有重要意义,对实务中疑难案件的处理也有助益。事实因果的判断中,有必要引入NESS(即充分原因中的必要要素)标准与概率提升标准,以弥补条件公式之不足。     

论垄断罪的依据、构成与刑事责任

垄断具有严重的社会危害性 ,将垄断犯罪化既有理论依据 ,也有法律依据。垄断罪的主体既包括自然人 ,也包括法人、非法人组织 ,既包括经济组织 ,也包括行政组织 ;垄断罪的主观方面表现为限制竞争的直接故意 ;垄断罪侵害的客体是为国家法律所保护的自由、公平的竞争秩序 ;垄断罪以垄断行为造成严重的社会后果为客观要件。垄断罪的刑事责任有罚金与监禁 ,前者既适用于法人、非法人组织 ,也适用于自然人 ,后者只适用于自然人。     

涉案企业合规刑行衔接的初步研究

涉案企业合规改革的推行和深化,离不开行政监管部门的全面配合.检察机关在涉案企业合规改革探索过程中,也较为注重发挥行政监管部门的作用,并尝试利用现有的制度空间解决好与行政监管部门的衔接配合问题.但由于行政监管部门并没有配合刑事执法机关参与办理企业合规案件的法定义务,加上衔接配合的规则和程序粗陋缺失,刑行衔接程序出现不畅问...     

Criminal Justice in a Democracy: Towards a Relational Conception of Criminal Law and Punishment

This article starts from the observation that in classical Athens the discovery of democracy as a normative model of politics has been from the beginning not only a political and a legal but at the same time a philosophical enterprise. Reflections on the concept of criminal law and on the meaning of punishment can greatly benefit from reflections on Athenian democracy as a germ for our contemporary debate on criminal justice in a democracy. Three main characteristics of the Athenian model will be analysed: the self-instituting capacity of a democracy based on participatory and reflective citizenship, political power as the capacity of citizens for co-operating and co-acting with others, and the crime of hubris as one of the key issues in Athenian criminal law. These analyses will lead to the conclusion that one of the key issues of a democratic legal order lies in its capacity of recognizing the fragility of the human condition and of developing workable and effective standards of justice in that context. A relational conception of criminal law and punishment, based on proportionality, reflexivity, mutual respect and responsibility fits best with a democracy under the rule of law.

Complicity in International Criminal Law and Canadian Refugee Law: A Comparison

International criminal law is normally seen as the purview ofcriminal prosecutions, either internationally or domestically.However, international criminal law is also increasingly beingapplied in refugee law. This is because the 1951 Refugee Conventioncontains an exclusion clause prohibiting asylum seekers fromobtaining refugee status if they have committed a crime againstpeace, a war crime or a crime against humanity. Thus, refugeelaw refers back to international criminal law; however, whileinternational criminal tribunals deal with persons who bearthe greatest responsibility, in actual practice persons whohave been excluded from refugee protection have been mostlyfrom the lower echelons of organizations involved in atrocities.This article, based on Canadian case law, examines the conceptsof complicity, aiding and abetting and joint criminal enterprisefrom both an international criminal law point of view and froma Canadian refugee law angle, in order to determine whetherthese notions have similar contents in the two jurisdictions.     

略论刑事司法公正与效率

刑事司法公正与效率 ,是全国人民的愿望和要求 ,是维护广大民群众根本利益的重要保障。公正与效率两者之间是相互依赖、相互依存和相互联系的整体。也就是说 ,没有公正 ,就没有效率 ,没有效率 ,当然也就不可能有公正。司法公正与效率还是国家依法治国的重要保障 ,只有在全国彻底地实现司法公正和效率 ,才能保障依法治国方略的彻底实现。     

How to do things on purpose: R. A. Duff'sIntention,Agency, and Criminal Liability

Conclusion There is a lot of material in this book, and Duff handles most of it very well. It is unfortunate that he felt the need to tie his discussion of serious philosophical questions in the criminal law to larger overarching questions of philosophy. It is possible that current conceptions of intentional action implicate dualism (or Dualism), I suppose, but that would be a book-length discussion all of its own. It would begin with a careful discussion of just what dualism is, and would track down the various ways in which particular substantive positions on intentional action rule out alternatives to dualism. Such a work might be interesting indeed. It would be interesting, for example, to see a discussion of a type of conceptual dualism that I suspect Duff would find congenial: a dualism that insisted upon the autonomy of purposive notions and rejected the causal analysis of intentional action. Would that sort of dualism make any difference at all for the criminal law? It might, and it might not. But in any event that is not what we find in this book, which, for all of its healthy enthusiasm for the place of philosophy in the law shows an excessive tolerance for makeweight arguments about the great questions.