I. INTRODUCTION In recent years, as competition in the Internet field has become increasingly hot, new types of unfair competition have emerged. Based on the internal reffection and in-depth review of the uncertainty of the general clause of the old law in practice, especially in response to the general concern of the phenomenon of ‘escape to the general clause’,
Environmental quality standards have technical and legal attributes. They are not departmental rules or normative instruments. Their normative force is from legal rules citing them. Being a yardstick for measuring environmental quality, they have functions of goal setting, performance appraisals, supervision, and accountability and play such roles in collaboration with legal norms and administrative plans that cite them. They take differentiated management as the guiding principle, take holism as the values and methodology, take a step-by-step approach to set goals, and take the policy choice as the result. They are not applicable to the finding of environmental torts from the normative perspective. From the factual perspective, they have limited use in proving environmental torts as they provide scientific support for proving harm and the causal link between tortious acts and harm.
As a universally adopted legal remedy,the legal aid system requires countries to provide free or reduced-cost legal services to economically disadvantaged or special case parties.1 It is an important component of improving the social security system and maintaining judicial fairness,and has become an important part of the public legal system.
检察一体化是由检察权的特殊性所决定的检察权运行的内在规律,是世界各国普遍遵循的检察权运行原理,在我国也具有充分的法律依据.检察一体化在当前实践中亟待研究解决的主要是上级人民检察院能否按照一体化的原理调用辖区内的检察官异地办理案件、不同地方检察院之间如何协作办理同类型案件、检察院内部不同部门之间的职权划分等问题.对于这些问题,无论是学界还是实务界还存在一些不同认识,在我国现行法律框架下厘清相关认识,有利于推动检察一体化的制度构建和有效运行.
Copyright user rights, which have emerged from copyright academia and foreign judicial practice, seek to elevate the limitations or exceptions of copyright to a subjective right of users. While user rights reflect the desire to protect the interests of users and prevent excessive restrictions on the public domain in the expansion of copyrights, such rights are not reasonable. The reasons are as follows: firstly, limitations or exceptions of copyright, such as the fair use doctrine, cannot be rendered as a right; secondly, in foreign cases, user rights are not a practical theory but a rhetorical tool; thirdly, the legislative theory of user rights failed in the arguments about legislative facts; fourthly, the liability of copyright owners' wrongful notice in the online environment cannot be expanded as a general remedy of user rights; finally, malicious litigation by copyright owners does not need to be regulated by creating user rights. As for protecting users' interests, we should shift to the balance in judicial cases and the support from the law on the protection of consumer rights and interests.
