卓越考研

对外经济贸易大学

2011年硕士学位研究生入学考试初试试题

考试科目：851法学专业理论

（请注意：此卷适用于报考法学理论，宪法学与行政法学，民商法学，诉讼法学，经济法学和国际法学专业的考生）

一  中文试题部分（共100分）

（一）简答题（每小题5分，共25分）

1.简述我国宪法中宗教信仰自由的涵义

2.简述我国中央与特别行政区的关系

3.简述我国全国人民代表大会的职权范围

4.简述我国宪法中公民获得物质帮助的权利

5.根据《中华人民共和国税收征收管理法》的相关规定，税务管理包括哪几个方面的内容？请简述之。

 （二）法条评析题（每小题10分，共20分）

1.评析《民事诉讼法》第二十二条“对公民提起的民事诉讼，由被告住所地人民法院管辖；被告住所地与经常居住地不一致的，由经常居住地人民法院管辖。”

2.请结合我国现实情况评析《反垄断法》第十六条“行业协会不得组织本行业的经营者从事本章禁止的垄断行为。”

 （三）案例分析题（共10分）

 陈国庆有二子一女，均已成年，妻子去世多年。2009年5月陈国庆病故于北京市海淀区某医院，其在海淀区遗有商品房2套。其大儿子陈立（家住北京市朝阳区）在办完丧事后，私自将2套商品房卖给了徐海明。陈立的妹妹陈珊（家住北京市石景山区）得知后，向人民法院提起诉讼，要求继承父亲的遗产。在诉讼中，陈立的弟弟陈宇从国外赶回，请求参加诉讼会，并向法院出具了一张其父亲生前书写的遗嘱，内容为北京市海淀区的2套商品房由陈宇一人继承，法院准许陈宇参加诉讼。在诉讼过程中，陈立出车祸死亡。

请回答如下问题：

1.陈珊应向哪些（个）人民法院起诉？为什么？

2.徐海明在本案中处于何种诉讼地位？并说明理由。

3.陈宇在本案中处于何种诉讼地位？并说明理由。

4.陈立在诉讼中突然死亡，法院应当作出何种裁决？并说明理由。

5.你认为诉讼结果如何？

 （四）论述题（每小题15分，共45分）

1.请结合我国《选举法》的修改论述选举权平等原则

2.试评述我国目前的民事诉讼起诉制度

3.反垄断法和不正当竞争法作为市场监督管理法的重要组成部分，被统称为竞争法律制度，目前世界上对此有几种不同的立法方式？试概述之，并从立法宗旨，调整对象等方面论述我国反垄断法和不当竞争法不同的法律定位及相互关系。

二  英文题（共50分）

 （一）阅读材料，回答文后问题（15分）

  Administrative law is concerned to secure his proper interests against the government. Constitutional law tries to secure his basic democratic rights, such as free speech, freedom of association and public meeting. In the United States the fifth and fourteenth Amendments to the constitution prohibit any interference with the individual’s life, liberty or property “without due process of law”, and many statutes, both of the United States Congress and of the state legislatures, have been challenged before the Supreme Court as infringing these rights.

1.请用中文简述何谓“ due process of law”。

2.请用中文简述美国最高法院在处理上述案件中通常会用到何种独特的司法程序。

 （二）请将下文翻译成中文（15分）

  In federal court, civil cease have traditionally been resolved by a judge’s legal ruling, a jury verdict, or a judge’s verdict in cease not tried before a jury; or the partied’ agreement to settle their case after negotiation, often after a settlement conference presided over by judicial officer.

  An alternative to these methods is alternative dispute resolution(ADR); as time goes on, ADR procedures are being used more often in the federal courts.

  Most forms of ADR take place out of the courtroom, are not binding on parties, and involve referral of case to a neutral party.

  By promoting settlement, ADR may reduce litigation cost and delays. Fed. R. Civ. P.16(b) provides that at any pretrial conference, the court may consider both settlement and “the use of special procedures to assist in resolving the dispute when authorized by statute or local rule.” Variation among forms of court-based ADR allows the court the discretion to choose the form most appropriate for the case at hand.

  In some cases the court may decide to incorporate ADR into a schedule of phased discovery.

  ADR might be scheduled after a preliminary phase of discovery giving the parties a fairly clear sense of the evidence bearing on the factual issues.

  After ADR, the court may schedule a second pretrial conference.

  If the parties do not settle, latter phases of discovery take place after ADR.

 （三）阅读材料，回答文后问题（20分）

   Local governments’ direct and deep involvement on forced evacuations and demolitions and in disputes over land seizures is a major cause of violent confrontations at the grassroot level.

   The overturning of a vehicle of the mayor of Chizhou, Anhui province, East China, during a recent standoff between villagers and demolition workers is only the latest sign of the friction that is developing as local authorites accelerate the pace of “urbanization”

   Although the mayor had to be escorted from the scene by scores of fully armed riot police, the most unsettling part of such stories is the damage done to people’s lives in the name of the State and government.

  The existing rules are unable to handle these escalating land disputes. On the contrary, in most cases, those murky clauses are the cause of the problem. So the last ray of hope is the proposed Regulations on Requisition of and Compensation for Buildings on State-owned Land. The draft version was published for public opinions on January 29.

  Reports have it that the latest draft may exclude local governments from the process of forced demolitions and consign the matter to the judiciary. The idea is to introduce a judicial procedure for such undertakings.

   Experts may be overly optimistic in assuming that the courts are aloof from local interests and therefore can guarantee justice. But leaving the matter to the courts’ deliberations is a meaningful step in the right direction, because it may bring us closer to the ideal of rule of law.

   However, judging from the present pattern of division of work among branches of the government, there is no way to really divest local governments from forced demolitions. The local courts’ lack of independence from same-level government will inevitably influence their judgments on whether forced demolitions are needed.

   At the very least, it will ensure a decent procedural mechanism and the threshold for abuse may be considerably higher. For that alone the idea is worth endorsing. But since a new set of rules is meant to solve real-world problem, instead of showcasing breakthroughs in thinking, we can legitimately expect more.

   Besides containing the reported clause, the final draft should include technical details to make sure court decisions do not become handy tools to impose injustice. And the potential victims must be given sufficient means to defend themselves against abuses. The priority should always be to protect those people subject to forced demolitions.

请用中文回答如下问题：

1.根据文章所述，简述池州事件的经过及其影响。

2.在作者看来，为什么现有的相关法律法规无法解决池州事件及类似的纠纷？

3.对于拟修改法规中的关键条文草案，作者持什么态度？请简明扼要地予以阐述。