检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:陈萍[1] Chen Ping
机构地区:[1]中共南京市委党校政治与法律教研部
出 处:《刑法论丛》2016年第4期370-390,共21页Criminal Law Review
摘 要:法国第2004—204号法律废除了1994年刑法典中法人刑事责任的“特例原则”,从此法人刑事责任彻底普遍化。回顾此次法国立法改革的理论支撑、实践准备以及具体过程,对反思中国法的相关问题实有助益。中国刑法单位犯罪的立法规定既“徒有其表”又“画地为牢”,单位犯罪的罪名范围聚讼已久,折射出中国单位犯罪的罪名选择缺乏统一标准。对比法国法人刑事责任的发展逻辑,中国单位犯罪的罪名范围目前仍不可盲目全面扩大,分则法条确有必要查漏补缺.应当进行相应整理、合并和调整。The No. 2004- 204 French law has abolished "the principle of specialty of corporate criminal liability" in its Criminal Code of 1994, and made it completely universalized. Reviewing the theoretical support, practical preparation and specific process of this French legislative reform is really helpful to reflect the related issues in Chinese law. The articles of unit crimes in Chinese criminal law are "self-binding", the range of unit crimes has a history of controversy. It shows the lack of selection standard of unit crimes. In contrast to the logic of the evolution of corporate criminal liability in France, the scope of unit crimes in Chinese law should not be fully expanded, but it is really necessary to exam the defects and fill the gaps.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.7