论二审参加之审理模式与路径重构

司法解释允许第三人在二审中申请参加,但调解不成将全案发回重审,以此保障第三人的审级利益并强行合并裁判,却不能兼顾程序效率与安定。其原因在于我国实务试图折衷苏俄与大陆法系模式但忽略了其关键设计： 苏俄民事诉讼虽然奉行第三人参加后本诉必须重新审理的原则,但禁止一审判决做出后的参加申请;大陆法系普遍允许诉讼终结前申请参加,但奉行本诉继续审理的原则。现行立法未限制二审参加,我国应当放弃重新审理模式,采纳本诉继续的原则。参加之诉应当由一审法院专属管辖或者由二审法院移送管辖,二审原则上应中止本诉等待参加之诉确定,或者在参加之诉也到达二审时合并审理。无独立请求权第三人一般受到被参加一方当事人诉讼状态包括二审失权的限制,但如果同时受到既判力、执行力或形成力的扩张作用,二审中仍可以实施与被参加一方当事人不同的诉讼行为。后诉中无独立请求权第三人可以基于其诉讼实施的缺陷排除参加或预决效力,恢复主张及证明责任分配的一般原则。     

论虚假诉讼受害人的救济:兼探讨第三人撤销之诉适用

虚假诉讼可能侵害的主体包括诉讼参加人和案外人。在我国当前民事诉讼程序和制度设计中,分别有再审、执行异议、执行异议之诉、另行起诉和第三人撤销之诉等多种救济方式,对不同救济方式不仅要从制度与程序对接与协调层面予以梳理,更需要从有效救济的角度对比分析何种途径更利于救济虚假诉讼受害人。再审救济的主体最全面,但在启动时往往需要公权力的介入及推动;而执行异议之诉、另行起诉所能发挥的作用非常有限;相比之下,第三人撤销之诉既可以弥补以上程序带来的救济不足,也回应了其在设立之初就被设定为规制虚假诉讼的立法目的。在初步可以证明存在虚假诉讼的情况下,应尽可能放宽第三人撤销之诉的原告资格,甚至可以将第三人撤销之诉作为启动虚假诉讼受害人救济之门。     

浅析我国民事诉讼法关于诉讼时效问题的处理

关于时效问题的处理模式世界主要有两种立法例:法院依职权主动审查和由当事人主张,世界上普遍采取的是后一种做法,但我国目前采用的是法院主动审查并作出驳回原告诉讼请求的判决。这个做法和民事诉讼中的很多理念、制度是相悖的,本文试图从诉讼时效的处理方式与诉讼要件、权利保护要件审查方式的冲突,与辩论主义与程序保障制度的冲突,与既判力理论的冲突三方面进行分析。     

从“民政局代诉索赔案”探讨我国原告资格制度

民政局代"无名氏"提起诉讼,这使得"无名氏"的权利得以保护,然民政局参与诉讼能否顺利进入诉讼,不同法院亦有不同做法.本文从民政局代诉索赔案看民政局在诉讼中的地位,由此观我国的原告资格制度问题之所在.我国原告资格制度在法律规定中过于狭隘的缺陷,结合我国的实际进行探讨,从具体的法律规定以及理论基础的角度来完善我国的原告资格制度.     

第三人撤销之诉刍议——程序保障视野下的第三人事后程序性救济机制

第三人撤销之诉设置之目的,旨在为受判决效力所及之第三人利益提供事后之程序救济。其理论基础,赖于既判力原则之相对化、既判力主观范围之扩张等,乃＂纷争解决一次性＂与＂程序保障＂调和的机制。从程序保障的视角考察,建立第三人撤销之诉,是案外人利益保护和民事诉讼制度自我完善之程序性机制。本文意旨在程序保障之视角下,讨论第三人撤销之诉之必要性。     

再谈违约与侵权的区分与竞合

在违约与侵权三种区分标准中,约定义务/法定义务系义务来源标准,是最重要、最接近事物本质的分类标准,但合同法扩张导致违反作为法定义务的合同保护义务也构成违约;绝对权/相对权&利益标准适合区分典型侵权和典型违约,但对于纯粹经济损失的侵权赔偿或给付义务含有安全保护内容之合同救济缺乏解释力;固有利益/履行利益之标准可作为义务来源标准的重要补充,但这对范畴并不能简单地等同于既有利益/将来利益,因为履行利益仅是将来利益的一种,当事人基于现状自然的、直接的延伸而必然可获得的将来利益,也应归入其固有利益。先合同义务中应包含保护义务,违反该保护义务也可能导致缔约过失责任。请求权规范竞合说既可克服其他学说的缺点,同时也与《合同法》及《民法总则》的规定相容,还能够更好地与新诉讼标的理论对接,更利于保障请求权人利益的实现。     

美国法院禁诉令制度之实践述评

禁诉令制度主要是在普通法系管辖区域内发展起来的,目前主要为英国、美国、加拿大、澳大利亚等国家所采用。禁诉令在美国法院的适用,主要是用于规制平行诉讼,也是美国用以处理各州间管辖权冲突的一种手段,有关这一问题的司法判例非常丰富。美国法院签发禁诉令时适用宽松的标准或严格的标准,两种标准各有利弊。禁诉令制度被视为一种”令人困扰的规则”。禁诉令有利于保护美国法院的管辖权和重要公共政策,维护美国国家利益,却有悖于国际礼让原则,损害外国国家主权。     

一起征信信息引发的纠纷及其对银行的启示

本案为虚假贷款纠纷中名义借款人已经获得法院判决其未向银行借款,而银行未能及时删除其向人民银行征信系统提交的有关该虚假贷款的信息,以致名义借款人无法从银行再借款而引发的纠纷。本案的根源在于虚假按揭贷款,因此涉及两个诉讼,一是关于名义借款人与贷款银行之间是否有借款法律关系,另一诉讼则是在前诉结束后,银行未能及时删除有关不良信用记录而对名义借款人是否造成名誉侵     

保险纠纷诉调对接模式分析

保险纠纷诉调对接是我国近年来兴起的一种旨在快速解决保险诉讼纠纷案件的新机制。它是法院在保险纠纷案件审理中,经征得当事人同意,邀请保险行业调解员参与调解,或将案件委托给保险行业调解组织进行调解,或将行业调解与司法调解有机衔接,促进纠纷双方当事人快速达成调解协议,及时妥善化解保险纠纷的制度。诉调对接起源于保险纠纷行业调解。我国加入WTO以来,商业保险业务快速发展,保险诉讼案件随之大幅增长。     

对股东大会决议瑕疵之诉的法律思考

股东大会决议瑕疵的诉讼救济制度是中小股东权益保护中的一项重要内容.我国对于该制度的规定从旧公司法第111条的极不完善,到新公司法第22条的初步完善,可见这一制度的重要性.但是股东大会决议瑕疵之诉还是存在着发展和不断完善的空间,本文从概念和立法例入手,探讨了我国现有法律存在的漏洞.     

跨行查询收费:替银行说几句话

银行卡跨行查询收费一经推出即遭到铺天盖地的反对,有的消费者甚至诉诸法庭。银行收取跨行查询费的行为究竟是出于对市场化原则的尊重还是蔑视?     

Managing for efficiency, managing for equity

It is a truism that not all managers do the same things in the same ways. Less often recognized, however, is the fact that the essential tasks and goals of management are not everywhere the same. Indeed, so unlike each other are the two primary systems of management--the "technocratic" and the "political"--that they consistently vary in the implicit contract offered to participants, the career path of members, the use of organizational structure, the choice of purpose, and the allocation of resources, but also provides a conceptual framework for understanding why they happen and what can be done to prevent their happening in the future.     

寿险产品评价体系研究

中国保险市场的发展,迫切需要建立保险评价体系.保险产品的评价体系是保险评价的核心,其主要目标是以保险产品相对透明为目的进行的.在所有的保险产品中,人身保险产品与社会大众关系最为密切,人身保险在保险业的保费收入中也占有决定性地位.所以,当务之急是首先建立人身保险产品的评价体系.寿险保单的保障程度、投资价值以及附带的服务水平是寿险产品的核心问题,应当成为寿险产品评价的主要内容.本文重点从寿险产品保障程度进行评价研究.     

微笑传递快乐 激情奉献奥运

前言：在2008年北京奥运会上,奥运志愿者成为了一道亮丽的风景线,他们用自己最美的微笑和热情的服务给世界留下了深刻的印象。在这个充满青春朝气的群体中,也活跃着财政青年的身影,他们以40天辛勤付出和无私奉献,圆满完成使命,为北京奥运的成功举办贡献了力量,也留下人生中美好的回忆。现刊载中评协奥运志愿者——李念辰和崔新园的文章,将他们辛苦工作的经历再现,让他们的欢乐与广大读者共享。     

The Demand for Accounting Conservatism for Management Control

We show that conservative financial reporting arises naturallyin principal-agent settings as a means of efficiently motivating agentswhen the penalties that can be imposed on agents are limited. Weconsider an accounting system whose reports are used for contracting andwhose parameters are controlled by the principal. One advantage of our model is that the information system we describe has the accountingcharacteristic of mapping unbiased underlying information about the firminto a reduced message space. The principal can choose how that mappingoperates, i.e., conservatively, liberally, or neutrally. When penaltiesare sufficiently limited (a limited liability setting), we show that theaccounting system designed by the principal is always conservative. Alternatively, in an unlimited liability setting, any bias in the systemdepends on random circumstances, and we would not expect accountingconservatism to arise as a pervasive and enduring phenomenon.     

Trust for accounting and accounting for trust

This paper combines insights from the sociology of knowledge and the emerging practice-based literature on learning and knowing to extend the institutional framework of accounting change developed by Burns and Scapens [Burns, J., Scapens, R.W., 2000. Conceptualising management accounting change: an institutional framework. Manage. Acc. Res., 11, 3–25]. In particular, it explores how management accounting systems (MAS) can be implicated in processes of learning and culture change, and used to identify ‘trustworthy’ solutions in the face of organisational crises. A case study of an Italian company, which was subject to massive change following its acquisition by General Electric, is used to discuss how, when crises arise and organisation members find themselves under intense pressure for change, their rationales and routinised behaviour, which are driven by the existing knowledge and cultural assumptions, are challenged. The case illustrates how MAS can act as sources of trust for the processes of change – i.e., accounting for trust; while at the same time being socially constructed objects of trust – i.e., trust for accounting. Drawing on the concept of personal trust and the notion of roles as access points to organisational (expert) systems, the paper discusses how, in this case, finance experts facilitated the acceptance and progressive sharing of new rationales and routines. Clearly, this does not guarantee that change will occur or occur in some ‘desired’ direction in other cases, but it increases the possibility of replacing trust in the predictability of routines with feelings of trust for change.     

Accounting for decisions and decisions for accounting

Behavioral decision theory (BDT) is concerned with “accounting for decisions”. The development of this interdisciplinary field is traced from the appearance of several key publications in the 1950s to the present. Whereas the 1960s saw increasing theoretical and empirical work, the field really started to flourish in the 1970s with the appearance of the review by Slovic & Lichtenstein (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, pp. 549–744, 1971), and key papers on probabilistic judgment (Tversky & Kahneman, Science, pp. 1124–1131, 1974), and choice (Kahneman & Tversky, Econometrica, pp. 263–291, 1979). From the early 1980s to the present, BDT has seen considerable consolidation and expansion and its influence now permeates many fields of enquiry. After this brief history, eight major ideas or findings are discussed. These are: (1) that judgment can be modeled; (2) bounded rationality; (3) to understand decision making, understanding the task is more important than understanding the people; (4) levels of aspiration/reference points; (5) use of heuristic rules; (6) the importance of adding; (7) search for confirmation; and (8) thought as construction. Next, comments are addressed to differences between BDT and problem solving/cognitive science. It is argued that whereas many substantive differences are artificial, two distinct communities of researchers do exist. This is followed by a discussion of some major shortcomings currently facing BDT that include questions about the robustness of findings as well as overconcern with a few specific, “paradoxial” results. On the other hand, there are many interesting issues that BDT could address and several specific suggestions are made. Moreover, these issues represent opportunities for accounting research and several are enumerated. Finally, BDT presents “decisions for accounting” in the sense that scarce resources need to be allocated to different types of research that could illuminate accounting issues. The argument is made that BDT is one research metaphor or paradigm that has proved useful in accounting and that should be supported. Such support, however, may mean that some researchers may work on issues that, at first blush, might seem distant from accounting per se.