卓越考研

对外经济贸易大学

2014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：本试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）

一、中文试题部分（共100分）

（一）简答题（共5道小题，每小题5分，共25分）

1.请你试着给出你对宪政的定义

2.你如何理解宪法和国际法的关系？

3.你如何评价1954年的国家主席制度？

4.依照《中华人民共和国法官法》，法官不得兼任何种职务？

5.什么是“营改增”，我国目前正在进行什么样的试点工作？

（二）法条评析题（每小题10分，共20分）

1.评析《民事诉讼法》第一百六十二条关于“基层人民法院和它派出的法庭审理符合本法第一百五十七条第一款规定的简单的民事案件，标的额为各省、自治区、直辖市上年度就业人员平均工资百分之三十一下的，实行一审终审”规定的程序制度。

2.《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第二十五条规定：“经营者采用网络、电视、电话、邮购等方式销售商品，消费者有权自收到商品之日起七日内退货，且无需说明理由，但下列商品除外：（一）消费者定作的；（二）鲜活易腐的；（三）在线下载或者消费者拆封的音像制品、计算机软件等数字化商品；（四）交付的报纸、期刊。除前款所列商品外，其他根据商品性质并经消费者在购买时que确认不宜退货的商品，不适用无理由退货。消费者退货的商品应当完好。经营者应当自收到退回商品之日起七日内返还消费者支付的商品价款。退回商品的运费由消费者承担；经营者和消费者另有约定的，按照约定。”

请解析该法条的相关法理依据，评析其实质内容、立法目的以及针对的社会现实情况。

（三）案例分析题（共10分）

  位于某市甲区的天南公司于位于乙区的海北公司签订合同，约定海北公司承建天南公司位于丙区的新办公楼，合同中未约定仲裁条款。新办公楼施工过程中，天南公司和海北公司因工程增加工作量、工程进度款等问题发生争议。双方在交涉过程中通过电子邮件约定将争议提交某仲裁委员会进行仲裁。其后天南公司考虑多种因素，向人民法院提起诉讼，请求判决解除合同。法院在不知道双方曾约定仲裁的情况下受理了本案，海北公司进行了答辩，表示不同意解除合同。在一审法院审理过程中，原告申请法院裁定被告停止施工，法院未予准许。开庭审理过程中，原告提交了双方在履行合同过程中的会谈录音带和会议纪要，主张原合同已经变更。被告质证时表示，对方在会谈时进行录音未征得本方同意，被告事先不知道原告进行了录音，而会议纪要则无被告人员的签字，故均不予认可。一审法院经过审理，判决驳回原告的诉讼请求。原告不服，认为一审判决错误，提出上诉，并称双方当事人之间存在仲裁协议，法院对本案无诉讼管辖权。

  二审法院对本案进行了审理。二审法院经过审理，判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

问题：

（1）何地法院对本案具有诉讼管辖权？

（2）假设本案起诉前双方当事人对仲裁协议的效力有争议，可以通过何种途径加以解决？

（3）一审法院未依原告请求裁定被告停工是否正确？为什么？

（4）双方的会谈录音和会议纪要可否作为法院认定案件事实的依据？为什么？

（5）原告关于管辖权的上诉理由是否成立？为什么？

（四）论述题（每小题15分，共45分）

1.请论述人是否有自杀的权利？安乐死是否应合法化？

2.试评述我国民事诉讼检查监督制度的适用

3.阅读下面材料，并回答问题

  强生（上海）医疗器材有限公司、强生（中国）医疗器材有限责任公司（以下合并简称为强生公司）在我国国内医疗器材市场中占有一定份额，2008年7月，强生公司以经销商北京瑞邦涌和科贸有限公司（下称瑞邦公司）未经许可擅自降价，非法获取非授权区域的锋线经销权为由，扣除瑞邦公司保证金，并最终取消了瑞邦公司的全部产品经销权。北京瑞邦公司认为二者起草的价格协议有垄断之嫌，遂将强生公司诉至法院索赔1400余万元。”（经查，瑞邦公司未经许可擅自降价，非法获取非授权区域的锋线经营权行为属实）

  请依照我国反垄断法的相关规定，论述：

（1）上面材料中所涉及的事实是否可能违反我国的反垄断法？（1分）

（2）如果涉嫌违反了反垄断法，可能属于哪种或哪几种垄断违法行为，为什么？如果没有违反反垄断法，请详细说明原因（6分）

（3）这一种或几种垄断违法行为的执法或司法判断路径是什么？（6分）

（4）上面材料中的案件是否存在法律时效的问题，为什么？（2分）

二、英文题（共50分）

（一）阅读材料，回答问后问题（15分）

  The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also interpret other provision of this law in adjudicating cases. However, if the courts of the Region, in adjudicating cases, need ti interpret the provisions of this law concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People’s Government, or concerning the relationship between the the Central People’s Government and the Region, and if such interpretation will affect the judgment in the cases, the courts of the Region shall, before making their final judgments which are not appeal-able, seek an interpretation of the relevant provisions from the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress through the Court of Final Appeal of the Region. When the Standing Committee makes an interpretation of the provisions concerned, the courts of the Region, in applying those provisions, shall follow the interpretation of the Standing Committee. However, judgments previously rendered shall not be affected.

1.请将上文翻译成中文

2.1999年轰动一时的“吴嘉玲诉香港入境事务处处长案”中，在香港特别行政区法院 没有主动依据基本法第158条提请全国人大解释关于中央人民政府管理的事务或中央和香港特别行政区关系的条款，随后全国人大常委会是依据什么程序完成了对香港基本法有关条款的解释？你对此有何评价？

（二）阅读材料，回答文后问题（可用中文回答）（20分）

  The present litigation began on July 14, 1971, upon the filing of a class action in Federal District Court of Colombia against the Corps of Engineers, the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Engineers to restrain them from initiating or continuing with the construction of the project. The named plaintiffs were two organizations, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF), a non-profit New York corporation whose membership consists of scientists, environmentalists and other interested citizens throughout the United States, some residing in the project area of Alabama and Mississippi, and the Committee for leaving the Environment of America Natural (CLEAN), a non-profit unincorporated association located at Starkville, Mississippi, whose membership is composed of Mississippi and Alabama residents who enjoy and are interested  in preserving the natural environment of the Tombigbee region, and a single individual, James D. Williams, an assistant professor of biology at Mississippi. The complaint set forth seven independent causes of action charging that the defendants had violated various federal statutes as well as the Constitution by proceeding with the project.

  Several distinct issues are presented in this environmental litigation. Broadly stated, plaintiffs contend that they should prevail for either of two reasons, viz. :(1) the actions of the defendants in recommending the Tennessee-Tombigee Waterway, and the decision to proceed with its construction, violate the substantive environmental policies of the nation as declared in §101 of the Act; and (2) the defendants, in their study and planing of the project and reporting and recommending it to the ultimate decision-makers (in this case the Congress and the President) failed to adhere to the procedures required by §102. For reasons that follow, the court holds that the plaintiffs, although possessing requisite standing to sue, fail on both issues and are not entitled to any relief on their complaint.

  The evidence adduced establishes that Dr. Williams, the individual plaintiff, has used the Tombigee River for both recreational and scientific purposes, enjoying the natural state of the region in proximity to his place of residence; that CLEAN’s membership consists of 60 to 70 persons residing near the project area who fish, hunt and engage in other recreational pursuits made possible by the Tombigbee; and that EDF’s membership includes environmentalists, like Dr. Williams, who live close to the project area and make scientific and recreational use of the river. The common complaint is that their usage and enjoyment of the present environment will be adversely affected by the waterway’s construction. Given this facts, the standing of all named plaintiffs to maintain this suit under NEPA was clearly established by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct.1361,31L.Ed.2d 636, decided April 19, 1972. As organizations having those member who assert direct injury, EDF and CLEAN may represent those members in this proceeding. It is likely that EDF, when suit was filed July 14, 1971, had only one member who could claim a personal adverse effect from the project. Other persons suffering direct injury joined the organization after the Sierra Club case was decided and before trial of this cause. The objection to the standing of this particular organization is not well taken. Moreover, the action is properly maintainable under as a class action on behalf of all persons aggrived or detrimentally affected bu the project, and has been heretofore so allowed by this court.

1.简述本案反映了何种诉讼制度

2.中国是否有相类似的诉讼制度？如果有，请简述

（三）Please read the article and give the Chinese version.（15分）

  The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies, who co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts. Trusts first appeared in the US railroads to discriminate on rates imposed and services provided to comsumers and bussiness and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could be dominate in different industries. The Standard Oil Company Trust in the 1880s controlled a number of markets, including the market in fuel oil, lead and whiskey. Vast number of citizens became sufficiently aware and publicly concerned about how the trusts negatively impacted them that the Act became a priority for both parties.

  Section 1 of the Sherman Act declared illegal”every contract, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy,in restraint of trade and commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations”. Section 2 prohibits monopolies, or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize. Following the enactment in 1890 US court applies these principles to business and markets. Courts applied the Act without consistent economic analysis until 1914, when it was complemented by the Clayton Act which specifically prohibited exclusive dealing agreements, particularly tying agreements and interlocking directorates, and mergers achieved by purchasing stock. From 1915 onwards the rule of reason analysis was frequently applied by courts to competition cases. However, the period was characterized by the lack of competition law enforcement. From 1936 to 1972 courts’ application of anti-trust law was dominated by the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. From 1973-1991, the enforcement of anti-trust law was based on efficiency explanations as the Chicago School became dominant, and through legal writings such as Judge Robert Bork’s book The Antitrust Paradox. Since 1992 game theory has frequently been used in anti-trust cases.