卓越考研

对外经济贸易大学

2012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：（1）此考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、经济法学专业的考生；（2）请将答案写在答题纸上，答在试题本上，答题无效。）

一  中文试题部分（共100分）

（一）简答题：（每题5分，共25分）

1.  简述选举基本原则中的秘密投票原则。

2.  简述我国宪法中对民族关系的规定。

3.  简述我国宪法中全国人大及其常委会在预算方面的职权。

4.  简述为何现代各国宪法普遍要求税收立法权要由民选议会垄断行使，而不是由议会与政府分享。

5.  简述2011年我国个人所得税法最新修订的主要内容。

（二）法条评析（每小题10分，共20分）

1.  评析《民事诉讼法》第一百零八条“起诉必须符合下列条件：（一）原告是与本案有直接利害关系的公民、法人和其他组织；（二）有明确的被告；（三）有具体的诉讼请求和事实、理由；（四）属于人民法院受理民事诉讼的范围和受诉人民法院管辖。”

2.  评析《中华人民共和国反垄断法》第十三条的相关规定：“禁止具有竞争关系的经营者达成下列垄断协议：（一）固定或者变更商品价格；（二）限制商品的生产数量或者销售数量；（三）分割销售市场或者原材料采购市场；（四）限制购买新技术、新设备或者限制开发新技术、新产品；（五）联合抵制交易；（六）国务院反垄断执法机构认定的其他垄断协议。”（10分）

（三）案例题（10分）

2009年5月24日，张某与王某因琐事发生争执，后引发斗殴，双方均受伤。张某因受伤较重，住院多日才康复，王某仅受轻微伤害。张某要求王某赔偿其损失。双方协商无果，张某遂于2009年11月6日向A法院提起人身伤害赔偿诉讼。

A法院受理后，适用简答程序审理此案，指定了10日的举证期限，在此期间张某向法院提供了医疗费发票、车票、病例卡等证据。一审开庭时，张某又向法院提供了其所在单位出具的工资条，证明其因住院请假扣除工资奖金共计3万余元。庭审调查中，被告王某主张该证据已超过举证期限，而张某解释说，迟延提出是因工作忙，未能及时开具工资条，最后法官安排双方对该证据进行质证。经双方同意，法庭主持该案调解。在调解中，被告承认对原告进行殴打，致其肋骨骨折；原告也承认，是他先出言不逊，引起斗殴。双方最终未能达成调解协议。2010年5月16日，法院依据双方在调解中陈述的事实和情况，认定被告承担主要责任，原告承担次要责任；并根据相关证据判决被告赔偿原告人身伤害损失共计4万元。

问题：请指出A法院在审理中存在的问题，并说明理由。

（四）论述题（每题15分，共45分）

1.  试论民事诉讼程序中辩论的法律效果。（15分）

2.  请从宪法的视角评析我国刑诉法修改中的“保护人民”与“保护人权”之争。（15分）

3.  我国二十世纪八十年代流行过“大经济法”的概念，九十年代后又有学者提出经济法“纵横说”、“管理协作说”等理论……请通过对我国经济法基本理念的历时性考察，对我国当下经济法在国家法律体系中的定位进行论述。（15分）

二  英文题（共50分，除判断对错题外，用中文回答问题）

（一）判断对错（认真阅读题目，并在答题纸上写出所选择的答案“True”或者“False”；每题3分，共15分）

1.      Non-litigative dispute resolution has a number of significant advantages over traditional litigation.

       True               False

2.      What is discussed in mediation is confidential.

       True               False

3.      Mediation is non-adversarial.

       True               False

4.      Arbitration involves a third-party’s intervention with the power to make a decision.

       True               False

5.      Mediation is an alternative to litigation.

       True               False

（二）阅读材料，然后用中文回答文后问题（共15分）

France has a written constitution which specifies how power is divided between executive, legislature and judiciary. There are no regional legislatures and all local government is subordinated to the central government, so that the problems of a conflict of powers between the centre and localities do not arise. Legislation of the French Parliament is vetted by a Constitutional Council before it comes into force, but there is no court which can invalidate legislation on the ground of its content after it has come into force.

问题：

1.  文中Constitutional Council指什么？（5分）

2.  文中后半部分描述的是哪一国的什么制度？请予以详细说明。（10分）

（三）阅读以下段落，然后用中文回答问题。（共20分）

A predatory pricing conspiracy is by nature speculative. Any agreement to price below the competitive level requires the conspirators to forego profits that free competition would offer them. The forgone profits may be considered an investment in the future. For the investment to be rational, the conspirators must have a reasonable expectation of recovering, in the form of later monopoly profits, more than the losses suffered.

The success of such schemes is inherently uncertain: the short-run loss is definite, but the long-run gain depends on successfully neutralizing the competition. Moreover, it is not enough simply to achieve monopoly power, as monopoly pricing may breed quick entry by new competitors eager to share in the excess profits. The success of any predatory scheme depends on maintaining monopoly power for long enough both to recoup the predator's losses and to harvest some additional gain. Absent some assurance that the hoped-for monopoly will materialize, and that it can be sustained for a significant period of time, the predator must make a substantial investment with no assurance that it will pay off. For this reason, there is a consensus among commentators that predatory pricing schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful.

Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had conspired over a period of many years to charge below-market prices in order to stifle competition. Such a conspiracy is incalculably more difficult to execute than an analogous plan undertaken by a single predator. The conspirators must allocate the losses to be sustained during the conspiracy's operation, and must also allocate any gains to be realized from its success. Precisely because success is speculative and depends on a willingness to endure losses for an indefinite period, each conspirator has a strong incentive to cheat, letting its partners suffer the losses necessary to destroy the competition while sharing in any gains if the conspiracy succeeds. The necessary allocation is therefore difficult to accomplish.

Finally, if predatory pricing conspiracies are generally unlikely to occur, they are especially so where, as here, the prospects of attaining monopoly power seem slight. Two decades after their conspiracy is alleged to have commenced, the defendants appear to be far from achieving this goal: the two largest shares of the retail market in television sets are held by RCA and respondent Zenith, not by any of petitioners. Moreover, those shares, which together approximate 40% of sales, did not decline appreciably during the 1970's. Defendants’ collective share rose rapidly during this period, from one-fifth or less of the relevant markets to close to 50%. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals found, however, that the defendants' share presently allows them to charge monopoly prices; to the contrary, the plaintiffs contend that the conspiracy is ongoing -- that defendants are still artificially depressing the market price in order to drive Zenith out of the market. The data in the record strongly suggests that that goal is yet far distant.

The alleged conspiracy's failure to achieve its ends in the two decades of its asserted operation is strong evidence that the conspiracy does not in fact exist. Since the losses in such a conspiracy accrue before the gains, they must be "repaid" with interest. And because the alleged losses have accrued over the course of two decades, the conspirators could well require a correspondingly long time to recoup. Maintaining supracompetitive prices in turn depends on the continued cooperation of the conspirators, on the inability of other would-be competitors to enter the market, and (not incidentally) on the conspirators' ability to escape antitrust liability for their minimum price-fixing cartel. Each of these factors weighs more heavily as the time needed to recoup losses grows. If the losses have been substantial -- as would likely be necessary in order to drive out the competition -- defendants would most likely have to sustain their cartel for years simply to break even.

Courts should not infer conspiracies when such inferences are implausible, because the effect of such practices is often to deter procompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs, i.e. the defendants' competitors, seek to hold defendants liable for damages caused by the alleged conspiracy to cut prices. Moreover, they seek to establish this conspiracy indirectly, through evidence of rebates and other price-cutting activities that plaintiffs argue tend to prove a combination to suppress prices. But cutting price in order to increase business often is the very essence of competition. Thus, mistaken inferences in cases such as this one are especially costly, because they chill the very conduct the antitrust laws are designed to protect.

问题：

1.  为什么作者认为在一般情况下，掠夺式定价难以实现其投机目的？（5分）

2.  为什么作者认为掠夺式定价在本案当中尤其难以实现？（5分）

3.  原告指控被告实施掠夺行为长达20余年，这说明什么问题？为什么？（5分）

4.  作者认为应当怎样规制掠夺式定价行为？其理由是什么？