Role of the Americans with Disabilities Act in Parental Rights Court Cases

In this paper, media provides a means of thinking critically about the role of ADA regulations should play in parental fights for individuals with mental disabilities, specifically mental illness, developmental disabilities, and brain injuries. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act more than 20 years ago to ensure the rights of individuals with disabilities, including parental rights. Title II of the ADA applies to decisions made in the courtroom and other governmental agencies, which include child custody cases and termination of parental rights. ＂Reasonable Accommodations＂ is one requirement of the ADA to make society more inclusive for individuals with disabilities, even in the realm of parenting. Under Title II, such modifications would include parenting classes, homecare assistance, support groups, community resources, and counseling. Through a critical examination of experiences as depicted through media and court case analyses of parents with mental disabilities, this paper argues that challenging the idea that individuals with disabilities cannot or should not be parents must start in the courtroom, by changing the attitudes and perceptions of judges presiding over child custody cases and termination of parental rights cases involving parents with mental disabilities.

Relief for Defendants Whose Litigation Rights Have Been Infringed upon by Courts: Problems and the Way Out

In regard to the people’s court’s infringement upon the litigation right of defendants,there are two relief means in our country:procuratorial supervision and appeal,neither of which can realize the goal of relief.The conflict between interrogation and defense has to do with the lack of relief mechanism.To solve the problem concerning relief to the defendant whose litigation right is infringed upon the court,independent procedural appeal mechanism must be established,the relationship between it and factual appeal must be properly dealt with.The procedure for procedural appeal should be made in accordance with the characteristics of procedural appeal.

Supervision over Court Proceedings to Protect Human Rights

In any modern society under the role of law, the court, as the organ of trials, invariably has its authority recognized by the constitution and laws, an authority that the general public accepts as a matter of course. Sentences and rulings passed by the court represent recognition of the relevant legal matters in accordance with the law, and their execution is guaranteed by the compulsory power of the state. Nevertheless, judges are human beings and,

Vaccination Obligation from the Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights——Taking the Case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic as an Example

The case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic concerned whether Czech legislation that imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism for non-vaccination violates the European Convention on Human Rights by forcing children to receive routine vaccinations. In the ruling, the European Court of Human Rights reiterated that the choice of public health measures falls within the discretion of member states. Meanwhile, to limit the infringement of individual interests to what is necessary and reasonable, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the criteria for human rights protection for compulsory routine vaccination: It should have a legal basis, a lawful aim, and be in line with the “needs of a democratic society.” Accordingly, the European Court of Human Rights held that the legal provisions involved in the case did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. As the first response of the European Court of Human Rights to compulsory vaccination, the case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic strengthens the influence of the law of the European Union in the field of public health by upholding the discretion of member states. Besides, although the case involves only routine vaccination, the human rights protection criteria clarified in it can be taken as a reference for introducing vaccination measures against COVID-19 in the context of the global pandemic.

Human Rights Protection Under China's Judicial System——An Interview with Xiao Yang, President of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China

Question: As you know. attention is now growing in China and outside to judicial protection of human rights. As President of the Supreme People’s Court and China’s top judge, would you make some comments on protection of human rights under China’s juridical system?

Constitutional Court Dysfunction as a Guardian of Constitutional Rights of Religious Minorities in Indonesia

Right to freedom of religion and belief guaranteed by the constitution in the positive legal order, in practice, does not necessarily guarantee freedom. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia provides a guarantee of religious freedom for every citizen under Article 28 E of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court, which is required to protect, maintain, and ensure religious freedom for religious minorities, is deemed to fail guarding the right of religious minorities, because in addition to providing a restrictive ruling on a judicial review of the rule of law which is contrary to the basic law, it also fails to interpret legal products under the laws as part of the constitution. The Constitutional Court dysfunction as a guardian of the constitutional rights of religious minorities occurs because of the vacuum of law （recht vacuum）, a narrow interpretation of the constitution by the constitutional judges. The urgency that needs to be addressed is to provide the Constitutional Court with a more extensive authority, which is not limited only to review legal products under laws, but also includes production of Law on Freedom of Religion and Belief for protection in the application of Article 28 E of the 1945 Constitution.

A Balance Between Court Security and Fair Trials:Court Cages in Criminal Cases——Using European Court of Human Rights Cases for Reference

In response to the 'cages in courts' issue in criminal trials,after reviewing a series of cases such as 'Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.Russia',the European Court of Human Rights has gradually clarified that the 'human dignity of the accused and his right to a fair trial are higher than the value of court security',thus found that putting the accused in a cage dock or improper use of a glass cabin dock are in breach of Article 3 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,constitutes degrading treatment and violates the right to a fair trial.This position is in line with the international overall trend,which is of significance as a reference for China’s courts.Domestic courts should take the initiative to change the current use of the 'low fence dock' to further enhance China’s judicial civilization.

China Court Cases on Intellectual Property Rights——First Chinese-English treatise on lP-related case analyses;hard cover,900 pages

For the purpose of summarising the judicial experiencein adjudicating IP-related cases and familarising the readersin China and overseas with the practical situation of

Judicial Application of International Human Rights Treaties in China

Since the Chinese Constitution does not stipulate the status of international treaties in the domestic legal system,the question of whether the domestic court can apply international human rights treaties keeps obscure all the time.China’s official statement and academic opinions generally believe that the domestic court couldn’t resort to the human rights treaties.In recent years,however,several cases have come out involving direct reference to human rights treaties by the court.The following factors contribute together to the direct reference:the inward-looking nature of international human rights treaties,specific requirements of human rights treaties,and the possible institutional room in Chinas’s current legal system.Take the view off ulfilling international human rights obligations,the practice of judicial application should be fully affirmed.Nevertheless,it should also be noted that relevant practice is still in its infancy,there are some problems such as inconsistent understanding and non-standard application.From the perspective of top-level design,it is necessary to provide a normative basis for the practice of the court,so as to make the international human rights treaties play their due role.

Witnesses＇ Appearance in Court and Guarantees for the Defendant＇s Right to Confrontation

The main significance of witnesses＇ appearing in court to testify in criminal trials is that this practice guarantees the defendant＇s right to confrontation. The issue can thus be framed in another way, as the issue of the appearance in court of the necessary witnesses. Here, the defendant＇s right to confront is the key point. Since neither China＇s criminal procedural law nor corresponding judicial interpretations have granted the defendant the right to confront, the rate of appearance of the necessary witnesses amounts in practice to only about twenty- five percent. Criminal trials conducted in the absence of the right to confrontation usually conform to the doctrine of positive substantive truth and manifest a lack of care in conviction and sentencing as well as reliance on a single source of legitimacy in reaching judgments. To correct this state of affairs, it is necessary to institute the right to confront and corresponding safeguards.

再论受教育权——基于“理由束”方法论的分析视角

对于“何为受教育权”这一问题,既有的受教育权方法论并未提供有效的应答策略。描述性方法论界定的受教育权概念缺少区分性和普遍性特征,评价性方法论因无力解决并不稳定的教育价值立场问题而使得受教育权概念陷入正当性“陷阱”。对此,在理由论的基础上,受教育权可被视为依附于一束理由的“要求”。在该“理由束”中,结合欧洲人权法院相关判决,受教育者的自我实现是初级内在理由,平等接受教育为次级内在理由,而包括国家干预在内的其他理由则构成外在理由;受教育权的初级和次级内在理由属于立法范畴的理由,又因无法在立法上穷尽外在理由,所以外在理由被分配至司法范畴。

公司意思标准下有限责任公司股权代持的体系重构

股权代持对股权归属的约定牵扯到公司股东认定的问题,并因此带来公司治理与权利公示上的混乱。有限责任公司股权代持应区分为合同法与公司法两个层面的问题,实际出资人和名义股东之间依据代持协议的债权债务关系处理,股权归属应当回归《公司法》关于股东身份的认定标准上。股东认定应采用公司意思标准,考察公司是否接纳实际出资人作为股东参与公司,公司意思可以通过明示或者默示方式作出。完全隐名与不完全隐名的区分应以是否获得公司认可为标准。同时,为保障其他股东对公司人合性的控制,应引入优先购买权制度作为事后救济,优先购买权的行使产生撤销股权变动的效力。商事外观主义原则应当通过登记对抗效力实现,名义股东的一般债权人原则上不受外观主义保护。

刑事诉讼证人出庭与远程视频作证——基本权干预的视角

面对刑事诉讼证人出庭难的实践挑战,远程视频作证成为技术层面的创新应对之策.然而,以证人在线出庭作为传统线下出庭的替代方案,存在正当性疑问.证人出庭对于查明案件事实至关重要,更是确保对质诘问权得以实现的程序保障.被告人与证人的直接对质诘问,是人的本能追求,也被国际司法规范认定为公正审判的基础性要求.从我国宪法文本出发,可以推导出对质诘问权的基本权地位.作为诉讼行为的远程视频作证,将不可避免地触及对质诘问权的核心内涵,从而具有基本权干预的性质.为规范远程视频作证,确保基本权干预的正当性,立法需要为其设置适当的正当化事由,包括但不限于当事人同意、证人无法出庭及证人保护等.

行政机关负责人出庭应诉制度再省思

行政机关负责人出庭应诉制度,是我国贯彻落实全面依法治国的重要探索,为我国行政争议实质性预防化解贡献了制度力量。但由于该制度的正常运行需要行政机关负责人具有较好的法律专业素质、付出更多额外的时间和精力等原因,在当前情况下,这一制度并没有在实践中得到很好实施,出庭应诉的实际效果并不理想。为充分发挥该制度在依法治国和法治政府建设中的积极作用,需要进一步明确出庭应诉的行政机关负责人范围和案件种类,衔接法治政府考核评定和责任追究,鼓励相关部门参与监督该制度的实施与完善。

“制造平等”理念下国际体育仲裁院法律援助制度的价值取向和规则释义

“制造平等”理念旨在平衡纠纷双方当事人间的势能差距,强调双方当事人的“武器平等”。在国际体育仲裁院“接近仲裁”的价值取向下,法律援助成为“制造平等”理念的具体化展开方式。国际体育仲裁院法律援助制度的目的在于保障经济弱势当事人特别是运动员一方的仲裁权益。法律援助制度的参与主体、构成要件和生效效力等具体规则不仅是“制造平等”理念的具体体现,还呈现出法律援助权利化和社会保障化的现代发展倾向。党的十八大以来,我国法律援助呈现援助主体扩大化和援助方式多元化的发展趋势,法律援助成为公共法律服务体系建构的基础性和关键性环节。我国体育仲裁法律援助发展的具体路径应融入构建现代化公共法律服务体系的大局,借鉴和参考国际体育纠纷解决机制或他国体育纠纷解决机制中的相关规定,契合《体育法》的价值追求并满足体育仲裁规则的体系性和合目的性要求。

规范性文件法院处理方式研究

对于违法的规范性文件,我国法院只能向制定机关提出不具有约束力的“处理建议”,许多发达国家法院则可以对规范性文件直接宣判,而且创造了多种判决类型,较好地解决了法院处理约束力的问题。此外,对于规范性文件所造成的直接损害,以及制定不作为所造成的损害,我国法院尚无法作出有效的处理,一些发达国家法院则可以判决制定机关进行赔偿。为此,我国可以参考国外相关经验,采取将“处理建议”改为判决,允许行政相对人对于规范性文件直接起诉等措施,从而改进我国规范性文件的法院处理方式,以更好地保障行政相对人的权利。

法院限制公民通信秘密权的合法性补强策略研究

《中华人民共和国宪法》第四十条对公民通信秘密权所作的高强度保护,导致了无论是学理上的解释还是实践中的应用,法院要求电信企业配合调取公民通信秘密之举的合宪性与否一直存在争议。尽管多数学者从法教义学的角度对条款内容进行拆分和论证从而为法院进行辩护,并形成了占居主流的“合宪说”,但法院与电信企业之间的冲突实则为基本权利限制理论领域的问题。法院限制公民通信秘密权不仅是对《中华人民共和国宪法》第四十条立宪本意的贯彻,在限制的过程中也遵循了法律保留原则及内外界限原则,其行为并不违宪。同时,为了更好地维护公民通信秘密权,消解法院调取行为导致的《中华人民共和国宪法》第四十条虚置风险,应当通过概括式和区别式进行立法,借由宪法解释界定通信秘密权的保护范围,以及在实践中遵循法益平衡原则来为法院限制公民通信秘密权作合法性补强。

“弹性”的嬗变:合法性原则在国际刑法中保障人权的价值演绎

合法性原则是国际刑法中的一项重要人权原则,该原则要求审判机构的司法行为符合国际刑法的渊源。保障被追诉者的人权与实现被害人的正义诉求之间存在的冲突,导致大量国际刑事审判实践对合法性原则采取“弹性”处理的方式。国际刑法诞生以来,经历了以战争规则为主要渊源,较多地吸纳国际人权法及各法域刑法规则,以《罗马规约》为核心发展成较为独立的国际法部门三个阶段。各类审判机构在不同阶段的实践呈现出以“弹性”处理为主,逐渐趋向于收紧的阶段性规律。严格合法性原则具备充分的价值根基,更符合国际刑法最高功能定位,也符合现代刑事司法尊重和保障人权的根本价值取向,同时符合国内法与国际法在人权保护机制上交互影响的趋势。因此,应当合理限制国际刑法的定罪渊源,谨防因其肆意扩张而造成的对人权的威慑。

欧洲多层次立宪主义:国内宪法、欧盟法律和《欧洲人权公约》之间的关系

在“《欧洲人权公约》与国内宪法的决议”解释性备忘录中,欧洲委员会首次接受了“多层次立宪主义”这一概念,文章深入分析了欧洲“多层次立宪主义”的内涵,特别是国内宪法、欧盟法律和《欧洲人权公约》三者之间的相互关系,并指出了国内宪法秩序与《欧洲人权公约》互补性的重要性。尽管欧洲委员会承认多级立宪制下可能存在的法律秩序紧张关系,但任何解决策略都必须尊重国际法律义务,并维护欧洲人权法院的权威和信誉。文章进一步探讨了欧盟法律与《欧洲人权公约》之间的潜在冲突,并通过意大利塔里克(Taricco)案等司法对话案例,展示出这些冲突可以通过和平方式解决。此外,文章还讨论了国际人权条约与国内法律秩序之间的关系,尤其是在执行欧洲人权法院判决时的挑战。最后,文章提出通过司法对话和创新机制,如设立由国内法官参与的欧盟法院混合庭,来缓解不同法律秩序和法院间的紧张关系。这将有助于确保欧洲“多层次立宪主义”体系在尊重各国宪法和欧洲人权标准的同时,促进法治、民主原则以及成员国主权与国际义务之间的和谐协调,推动整个欧洲法律秩序的共同进步。

表见代理之通说的知识考古学分析——以德国法为线索

民商事活动的不断扩张导致保护交易安全的需求更加强烈,此项倾向投射到私法观念中导致了对意思主义的背离,促使了权利外观理论的兴起与昌盛,最终导致表见代理之案型的解决路径整体上由默示授权转变到权利外观(表见)理论。在表见代理学说发展过程中,公示思想及相关制度提供了思想基础与概念素材,泽勒虽率先提出表见代理学说并将《德国民法典》第170条至第173条作为实定法基础,但其学说在司法实践中遭遇了被忽略之困境,因为先前关于表见代理之案型的众多判例足以提供较为充足的裁判指导。在学者的努力下,泽勒所主张的表见代理学说逐渐获得了更多的认可,并在“二战”后成为通说。在这一过程中,表见代理在适用范围上实现了由商事领域到民事领域的突破,在概念分化中又产生了(指称特定表见代理案型的)假象代理权与容忍代理权。这所有教义学层面的发展,均来源于私法观念上对意思主义的背离。