IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-07-20 DOI: 10.3868/s050-007-018-0018-2

Wu Zhicheng

引用次数: 0

AN EXAMINATION OF RETAIL CLIENTS’ INVESTOR SUITABILITY RULES IN THE COBS AND THE LESSONS FOR CHINA 对美国零售客户投资者适宜性规则的考察及其对中国的启示

IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-07-20 DOI: 10.3868/s050-007-018-0017-5

Zheng Weiwei, Ding Yu

{"title":"AN EXAMINATION OF RETAIL CLIENTS’ INVESTOR SUITABILITY RULES IN THE COBS AND THE LESSONS FOR CHINA","authors":"Zheng Weiwei, Ding Yu","doi":"10.3868/s050-007-018-0017-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-007-018-0017-5","url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays, the complexity of financial products makes it difficult for retail clients to identify investment risks, and there is an increasing tendency for firms, stipulated by the maximum profits, to recommend or enter into unsuitable transactions to or for retail clients while providing services of investment advice and portfolio management, which causes great losses to a significant number of investors. So, in the contemporary society, the investor suitability rules through which retail clients can purchase suitable financial products are the indispensable legal basis of investor protection. Currently, the regulations concerning investor suitability management in China have several problems, including the chaotic legal system, low effectiveness level and defective contents, which may make it difficult for suitability to be applied in justice and managed effectively. Since the UK’s investor suitability rules in the Conduct of Business Sourcebook that apply to retail clients whose contents include requirements of obtaining retail clients’ information, requirements of information to be provided to retail clients and criteria of assessing suitability are clear and comprehensive, the authors believe that the UK’s experiences can provide a great enlightenment for China to better investor suitability management rules, including integrating legal documents and optimizing effectiveness level, rationalizing application scope, adding criteria of assessing suitability and revising specific clauses.","PeriodicalId":41655,"journal":{"name":"中国法学前沿","volume":"13 1","pages":"260-290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3868/s050-007-018-0017-5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41875605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RECIPROCITY REQUIREMENT FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN JAPAN 日本承认和执行外国判决互惠要求的违宪性

IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-07-20 DOI: 10.3868/s050-007-018-0012-0

Y. Okuda

{"title":"UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF RECIPROCITY REQUIREMENT FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN JAPAN","authors":"Y. Okuda","doi":"10.3868/s050-007-018-0012-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-007-018-0012-0","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with reciprocity requirement for recognition of foreign judgments in Japan. Following German law, Japanese law requires reciprocity to the rendering state in addition to the jurisdiction of the state, the service of process, and the compatibility with Japanese public policy. Although Japanese courts have rarely refused the recognition of foreign judgments for lack of reciprocity for a long time, some Chinese judgments recently have not been recognized for this reason. The author clarifies first with historical review what was the purpose of the Japanese legislator, when the original law of 1890 required the reciprocity by international treaties, and when later the reform law of 1926 required the simple reciprocity that is similarly provided in the current law. The author surveys then the Japanese case law concerning the reciprocity requirement after the reform of 1926. The author focuses further on the reciprocity between Japan and China and compares the Japanese practice with the German one that led to a different result. Last, it is concluded that the reciprocity requirement is contrary to the protection of human rights under Japanese constitution.","PeriodicalId":41655,"journal":{"name":"中国法学前沿","volume":"13 1","pages":"159-170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45102479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS BETWEEN CHINA, JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA IN THE NEW ERA: SOUTH KOREAN LAW PERSPECTIVE 新时期中日韩三国判决的承认与执行:韩国法律视角

IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-07-20 DOI: 10.3868/s050-007-018-0013-7

K. Suk

{"title":"RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS BETWEEN CHINA, JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA IN THE NEW ERA: SOUTH KOREAN LAW PERSPECTIVE","authors":"K. Suk","doi":"10.3868/s050-007-018-0013-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-007-018-0013-7","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “South Korea” or “Korea”). Articles 217 and 217-2 of the Civil Procedure Act of Korea and Articles 26 and 27 of the Civil Enforcement Act of Korea provide for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments respectively. Korea has not entered into any bilateral or multilateral treaties regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and is not a party to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. The article also considers the current undesirable status of recognition and enforcement of judgments in the region consisting of China, Japan and South Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Region”) and suggests a course of action to be taken to improve the situation. The author believes that the experts of the Region should embark upon a project to improve the current situation and that the first step should be to exchange and gather information on the current legal regime of the countries in the Region on the recognition and enforcement of judgments. The author looks forward to future cooperation among the experts in the Region on this topic and is confident that the reciprocity requirement, which currently is a major obstacle to the mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Region, will be overcome in the near future.","PeriodicalId":41655,"journal":{"name":"中国法学前沿","volume":"13 1","pages":"171-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42591773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

CHINESE NATURAL LAW TRADITION AND ITS MODERN APPLICATION: A RESPONSE TO HON . ROLLIN A. VAN BROEKHOVEN 中国自然法传统及其现代应用&对洪的回应。罗琳A.范

IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-04-23 DOI: 10.3868/S050-007-018-0007-8

Zhang Shoudong

引用次数: 0

RULEMAKING POSSIBILITIES: EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EVIDENCE RULES TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES TO FORENSIC EXPERT TESTIMONY 规则制定的可能性:美国司法会议证据规则咨询委员会为解决法医专家证词面临的挑战所作的努力

IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-04-23 DOI: 10.3868/S050-007-018-0004-7

Daniel J. Capra

{"title":"RULEMAKING POSSIBILITIES: EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EVIDENCE RULES TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES TO FORENSIC EXPERT TESTIMONY","authors":"Daniel J. Capra","doi":"10.3868/S050-007-018-0004-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3868/S050-007-018-0004-7","url":null,"abstract":"This piece is an echo to one of the main subjects of the Sixth International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science which is to determine what evidentiary reforms are necessary for regulating forensic expert testimony, and how those reforms might be implemented. In United States, the predominant way of evidentiary reform is through rulemaking. As the Reporter of Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence since 1996, the author, with a pragmatic spirit throughout the article, examines such an effort at the federal level of U.S. in six parts (levels), starting from the most general, abstract level till finishing with the most detailed and substantive points. Part I begins with a brief introduction of the hierarchies of evidentiary rulemaking authorities at the federal level of the United States, various interested groups and their interesting interactions in the rulemaking process. The author then shifts to the general topic of writing rules with a specific focus on the level of detail that is to be provided in doing so; Part II further narrows down the scrutiny into writing a rule on forensic expert testimony with an emphasis on the necessity of making such a rule change to the current general standards of FRE; Part III directly addresses the challenges of drafting a rule on forensic evidence in FRE, including a comparation of various alternative drafting models; Part IV and Part V respectively discusses the Reporter’s comments and the Justice Department’s concerns over the drafted rules; and Part VI briefly discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of a Best Practices Manual on forensic evidence in lieu of rulemaking.","PeriodicalId":41655,"journal":{"name":"中国法学前沿","volume":"13 1","pages":"34-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2018-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3868/S050-007-018-0004-7","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44780653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS AMONG CHINA, JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA IN THE NEW ERA 新时期中日韩三国判决的承认与执行

IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-04-23 DOI: 10.3868/S050-007-018-0010-6

Z. Wenliang

引用次数: 1

The Admissibility of Pre-Trial Testimonial Transcripts: A Discussion of Practice In China and In the International Criminal Tribunals 预审证言的可采性——兼论我国和国际刑事法庭的实践

IF 0.3 4区社会学

中国法学前沿 Pub Date : 2018-04-23 DOI: 10.3868/S050-007-018-0006-1

Wang Zhuhao, Wang Zhuhao, Huang Yanni

引用次数: 0

RETHINKING CHINESE EVIDENCE THEORIES AND RECONSTRUCTING SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE: “A THREAD FOR THE PEARLS OF CHINESE EVIDENCE” 对中国证据理论的反思与证据体系的重构&中国证据珍珠的一根线