卓越考研

对外经济贸易大学

2013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.成文宪法与不成文宪法有何区别？

2.什么是宪法判例？

3.什么是“一国两制”？

4.简述我国个人所得税法对于居民纳税人和非居民纳税人的相关规定

5.依照我国预算法的相关规定，简述我国的预算体质

（二）法条评析题

1.请分析民诉法第55条：“对污染环境、侵害众多消费者合法权益等损害社会公共利益的行为，法律规定的机关和有关组织可以向人民法院提起诉讼。”（10分）

2.消费者权益保护法第三十二条规定：“消费者协会履行下列职能：（一）向消费者提供消费信息和咨询服务；（二）参与有关行政部门对商品和服务的监督、检查；（三）就有关消费者合法权益的问题，向有关行政部门反映、查询，提出建议；（四）受理消费者的投诉，并对投诉事项进行调查、调解；（五）投诉事项涉及商品和服务质量的，可以提请鉴定部门鉴定，鉴定部门应当告知鉴定结论；（六）就损害消费者合法权益的行为，支持受害的消费者并提起诉讼；（七）对损害消费者合法权益的行为，通过大众媒体予以揭露、批评。”

试分析：

(1)消费者协会在我国的法律地位和职能；（3分）

(2)现行法律对于消费者协会相关职能的规定对于切实保护消费者利益存在不足，这些不足之处制约着消费者协会在维护消费者合法权益方面作用的发挥，如何进一步完善？（7分）

（三）案例分析题（10分）

  2012年2月余某向法院起诉，请求判令雷某返还借款并支付利息。余某向法院提交借条一张，内容为：“今借余某人民币叁万元整，月息壹分，期限三个月。”落款“雷X 2010年6月16日”。雷某辩称，其已返还借款且余某当场撕碎了这张借条，这张借条不是本人所写。雷某向法院提交了其代理律师向案外人夏某所作的调查笔录，证明雷某已返还借款。法院传唤夏某出庭作证。但夏某未到庭。问：

（1）雷某提交的律师调查笔录，属于哪一证据种类？为什么？

（2）法院能否依据夏某的证言认定还款事实？为什么？

（3）如果当事人申请对借条的真伪性进行鉴定，应由谁提出并预交鉴定费？为什么？

（四）论述题（共3道小题，每题15分，共45分）

1.试述我国政党制度的特色

2.试述民事简易程序的特征

3.请运用关于公法与私法划分的相关理论，对经济法的性质进行论述

二、英文题（共3道小题，共15分，用中文回答）

1.阅读材料，回答文后问题（20分）

  Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints or charges against, or exposures of, any state organs or functionary for violation of the law or dereliction of duty; but fabrication or distortion of facts for purposes of libel or false incrimination is prohibited.

  The state organ concerned must deal with complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures or retaliate against the citizens making them.

  Citizens who have suffered losses as a result of infringement of their civic rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

（1）文中黑体部分 any state organ or functionary 中的any 是什么意思？（5分）

（2）公民在进行complaints or charges against, or exposures of时，如最后发现与事实不符，是否要承担一定的诬告陷害责任？（5分）为什么？（10分）

2.请将下文翻译成中文（15分）

（1） The challenge for the trial lawyer, then is to present a case that will “move the mind” of the trail judge. To do that, the advocate must understand the board sweep of the Federal Rule of Evidence. The Rules bring real life, with its strengths and weakness, into a courtroom, to be presented, in most cases, to an untrained audience. The audience will create its own version of the story of the case, reflecting each member’s life experiences and intelligence.（7分）

（2） The trial, as envisioned by the Federal Rules of Evidence, becomes a statement of trust. Juries are trusted to reach fair and rational decisions for the right reasons, adhering to instruction from judge, undeterred by emotion. The lawyers are trusted to know and expound rules of evidence effectively and responsibly, using the best tools of advocacy to persuade the judge that legal and moral rightness supports their position. Finally, the judge is trusted to apply rules of evidence fairly and sensibly, following precedent where applicable, applying the law’s board grant of discretion with reason and humanity.（8分）

3.阅读下列材料，并用中文回答问题（15分）

EASTMAN KODAK CO. v. IMAGE RECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., et al.

(certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit, No. 90-1029.

Argued December 10, 1991—Decided June 8, 1992)

After respondent independent service organizations (ISOs) began servicing copying and micro-graphic equipment manufactured by petitioner Eastman Kodak Co., Kodak adopted policies to limit the availability to ISOs of replacement parts for its equipment and to make it more difficult for ISOs to compete with it in such equipment.  Respondents then filed this action, alleging, inter alia, that Kodak had unlawfully tied the sale of service for its machines to the sale of parts, in violation of §1 of the Sherman Act, and had unlawfully monopolized and attempted to monopolize the sale of service and parts for such machines, in violation of §2 of that Act. The District Court granted summary judgment for Kodak, but the court of Appeals reversed. Among other things, the appellate court found that respondents hand presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue concerning Kodak’s market power in service and parts markets, and rejected Kodak’s contention that lack of market power in service and parts must be assumed when such power is absent in the equipment market.

问题：

（1）对本案案情进行简要概述（3分）

（2）文中涉及哪些涉嫌违法行为？违反了什么法？改法的历史地位如何？（4分）

（3）此类违法行为在中国相关法律上是如何规定的？其认定需要经过哪些必要的分析过程？（8分）