【摘要】：知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法，是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法保護(hù)的簡(jiǎn)稱，通常指知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的執(zhí)法制度和執(zhí)法程序，也稱知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的執(zhí)法機(jī)制。隨著科學(xué)技術(shù)的不斷進(jìn)步，跨國(guó)技術(shù)交流日益頻繁，大量國(guó)際知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)條約推動(dòng)了各國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)實(shí)體保護(hù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的趨同，與此同時(shí)，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法的重要性開(kāi)始凸顯，逐步納入國(guó)際條約的關(guān)注視野。 對(duì)國(guó)際多邊條約知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法的研究不僅具有重要的理論意義，也具有重要的實(shí)踐的意義。其理論意義在于：首先，剖析了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的權(quán)利屬性，深入分析了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)與人權(quán)、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)與公共利益的關(guān)系，進(jìn)而從知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)正義論的角度，對(duì)國(guó)際多邊條約調(diào)整知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法事項(xiàng)的合理性和必要性進(jìn)行考察。其次，擴(kuò)展了傳統(tǒng)國(guó)際條約義務(wù)的內(nèi)涵和外延。第三，深化了國(guó)家執(zhí)法主權(quán)的自我限制和外部監(jiān)督。最后，提出了國(guó)際多邊條約對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法問(wèn)題進(jìn)行規(guī)定時(shí)，，應(yīng)當(dāng)遵守的“均衡保護(hù)”、“執(zhí)法與實(shí)體”保護(hù)相協(xié)調(diào)的理念。而其實(shí)踐意義在于：此命題直接關(guān)系到我國(guó)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法機(jī)制的建構(gòu)以及今后在WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制下相關(guān)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法爭(zhēng)端的預(yù)防和應(yīng)對(duì)，具有很強(qiáng)的實(shí)踐性和可操作性：一方面，對(duì)現(xiàn)有多邊條約中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法條款的發(fā)展脈絡(luò)的分析和梳理，有利于正確把握國(guó)際條約規(guī)定知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法事項(xiàng)的發(fā)展方向和趨勢(shì)，從而為將來(lái)多邊知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)條約的發(fā)展做出準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測(cè)；另一方面，對(duì)現(xiàn)有多邊條約中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法執(zhí)法條款具體內(nèi)容的釋義性分析，有利于學(xué)習(xí)和借鑒其中的科學(xué)規(guī)定，警惕其不良傾向，為合理構(gòu)建我國(guó)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法機(jī)制提供有益借鑒。 事實(shí)上，國(guó)內(nèi)對(duì)國(guó)際知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)條約中的執(zhí)法條款進(jìn)行解釋性研究的并不鮮見(jiàn)，但從理論層面對(duì)其合理性進(jìn)行解釋，并在此基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)國(guó)際條約對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法調(diào)整的合理范圍進(jìn)行探討的卻不多。而本文的一個(gè)核心問(wèn)題就在于對(duì)國(guó)際多邊條約規(guī)定知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的合理性論證，并在此基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)國(guó)際條約涉入國(guó)內(nèi)執(zhí)法事項(xiàng)的正當(dāng)程度和范圍進(jìn)行界定。這不僅是本文的理論根基，也直接決定了對(duì)現(xiàn)有知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)條約中的執(zhí)法性規(guī)定的義務(wù)性質(zhì)和義務(wù)范圍的認(rèn)定，從而決定了我國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)此類條約義務(wù)的科學(xué)態(tài)度。而這也恰是本文的難點(diǎn)所在。傳統(tǒng)國(guó)際法理論認(rèn)為，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法屬于嚴(yán)格國(guó)內(nèi)事項(xiàng)，直接關(guān)系到國(guó)家執(zhí)法主權(quán)，如何在國(guó)家主權(quán)與國(guó)際條約義務(wù)約束之間尋求一種“微妙的”平衡，這本身就需要深厚的理論基礎(chǔ)和宏觀的全局思想；同時(shí)，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)是兼具私權(quán)屬性與公共利益功能的特殊壟斷性權(quán)利，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法和救濟(jì)必然涉及國(guó)家公權(quán)力介入，也必然要對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利的私人激勵(lì)性與公共福利性進(jìn)行適當(dāng)?shù)钠胶�，特別是當(dāng)這種平衡還必須接受來(lái)自本國(guó)之外的國(guó)際因素影響時(shí)，如何在盡量堅(jiān)持本國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)政策價(jià)值取向的同時(shí)，規(guī)避相關(guān)的條約責(zé)任，這無(wú)論是在立法態(tài)度上還是立法技術(shù)上都需要相當(dāng)?shù)膱A通性和靈活度。 本文從知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法的概念、特征和功能入手，以知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的國(guó)際多邊條約調(diào)整為主線。首先從理論上探討其對(duì)國(guó)際法傳統(tǒng)理論和國(guó)際條約法基本認(rèn)識(shí)的突破及其歷史必然性，同時(shí)結(jié)合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)本身所兼具的私權(quán)激勵(lì)性與公共福利性的雙重屬性，分析其與傳統(tǒng)意義上的“人權(quán)保護(hù)”的差異及由此所決定的國(guó)際保護(hù)手段的特殊性，并對(duì)其涉入一國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)執(zhí)法主權(quán)的程度、范圍和方式所應(yīng)當(dāng)遵守的基本原則和必要限制進(jìn)行了探討，著重解決應(yīng)然領(lǐng)域的“是否應(yīng)當(dāng)”以及“如何”將知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法在國(guó)際多邊條約中作出規(guī)定；接著，以歷史和實(shí)證的眼光，考察目前已有的識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)國(guó)際條約中規(guī)定國(guó)內(nèi)執(zhí)法義務(wù)的歷史背景和利益需求，并對(duì)所涉條款，特別是TRIPS第三部分執(zhí)法條款的目的、宗旨、內(nèi)容進(jìn)行全面考察，結(jié)合國(guó)際條約解釋的一般規(guī)則，從迄今為止WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制下涉及TRIPS執(zhí)法條款的所有案例中總結(jié)出爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)構(gòu)的基本態(tài)度，輔助理解相關(guān)執(zhí)法條款的準(zhǔn)確含義，并具體分析此類爭(zhēng)議在WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制下的具體運(yùn)作程序和解決途徑。最后，對(duì)照我國(guó)現(xiàn)有知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法機(jī)制的優(yōu)勢(shì)和不足，確立我國(guó)面臨此類條約的科學(xué)態(tài)度，完善我國(guó)的立法、司法、行政及海關(guān)程序，并為我國(guó)在WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制下應(yīng)對(duì)此類爭(zhēng)議做好充分的法律和技術(shù)準(zhǔn)備。 本文共五章，約十八萬(wàn)字，前三章偏重理論，后兩章偏重實(shí)踐，第三章既是前兩章理論分析的結(jié)論和落腳點(diǎn)，也是后兩章實(shí)踐考察的前提和標(biāo)尺，起到承上啟下的重要作用。各章的主要內(nèi)容分別為： 第一章為知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法及其國(guó)際條約保護(hù)概述。主要介紹了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法的概念、特征、功能，并簡(jiǎn)單介紹了國(guó)際多邊條約以《TRIPS協(xié)定》為分界點(diǎn)，對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)從基本不作規(guī)定到疏密有致的體系化安排，而后在發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家和發(fā)展中國(guó)家的利益博弈中逐步分化為兩種不同發(fā)展趨勢(shì)的基本脈絡(luò)。 第二章為知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法國(guó)際多邊條約調(diào)整的理論依據(jù)。從知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)本身的特殊權(quán)利屬性、程序正義的應(yīng)有之意、全球化背景下國(guó)際法人本化發(fā)展趨勢(shì)的必然結(jié)果、條約必須遵守原則的內(nèi)在要求四個(gè)方面論證了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法事項(xiàng)通過(guò)國(guó)際多邊條約予以規(guī)定的合理性。 第三章為國(guó)際多邊條約中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法規(guī)定對(duì)傳統(tǒng)國(guó)際法理論的挑戰(zhàn)及合理構(gòu)建。主要分析了國(guó)際多邊條約規(guī)定知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)國(guó)家執(zhí)法主權(quán)的限制的深入和對(duì)傳統(tǒng)國(guó)際條約義務(wù)內(nèi)涵和外延的擴(kuò)展，以此為基礎(chǔ)，歸納出國(guó)際多邊條約中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法性規(guī)定應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的尊重差異、均衡保護(hù)、整體機(jī)制可行以及程序正義等基本原則，以及與知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)實(shí)體權(quán)利規(guī)定協(xié)調(diào)配合，確立合理的解釋權(quán)限和規(guī)則等必要限制。 第四章為各主要多邊條約知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法條款解析。分階段對(duì)《TRIPS協(xié)定》之前的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)多邊條約《、TRIPS協(xié)定》本身以及以ACTA為代表的TRIPS-plus條約中有關(guān)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法的規(guī)定，結(jié)合經(jīng)典案例進(jìn)行了解析和評(píng)價(jià)。其中，對(duì)《TRIPS協(xié)定》執(zhí)法條款的分析是本章的重點(diǎn)內(nèi)容，除了介紹《TRIPS協(xié)定》執(zhí)法條款的基本框架和具體要求外，還分析了《TRIPS協(xié)定》執(zhí)法條款與《TRIPS協(xié)定》其它條款、與WTO其他基本原則和機(jī)制的關(guān)系，并通過(guò)具體案例探析了WTO爭(zhēng)端解決專家小組和上訴機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)執(zhí)法條款的態(tài)度。 第五章為國(guó)際多邊條約知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)我國(guó)的影響及對(duì)策。主要介紹了我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法的現(xiàn)狀及特征，分析了現(xiàn)有國(guó)際多邊條約中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法性規(guī)定，即《TRIPS協(xié)定》執(zhí)法條款、發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家推動(dòng)的TRIPS-plus執(zhí)法以及發(fā)展中國(guó)家倡導(dǎo)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)多元化目標(biāo)體系對(duì)我國(guó)的不同影響。結(jié)合我國(guó)的國(guó)內(nèi)外實(shí)際，從對(duì)內(nèi)與對(duì)外兩個(gè)方面為我國(guó)合理應(yīng)對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，科學(xué)構(gòu)建符合我國(guó)國(guó)情的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法體制提出了建議。
[Abstract]:Intellectual property law enforcement is the abbreviation of intellectual property law enforcement protection. It usually refers to the law enforcement system and procedure of intellectual property protection, also known as the law enforcement mechanism of intellectual property. At the same time, the importance of intellectual property law enforcement began to highlight and gradually incorporated into the attention of international treaties.
The research on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in international multilateral treaties is not only of great theoretical significance, but also of great practical significance. Secondly, it expands the connotation and extension of traditional international treaty obligations. Thirdly, it deepens the self-limitation and external supervision of national law enforcement sovereignty. Finally, it points out that international multilateral treaties should abide by the provisions on intellectual property law enforcement. The practical significance of this proposition lies in that it is directly related to the construction of the enforcement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China and the prevention and response to the disputes concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism in the future. On the one hand, the analysis and combing of the development context of the intellectual property law enforcement clauses in the existing multilateral treaties will help us to correctly grasp the development direction and trend of the intellectual property law enforcement matters stipulated in the international treaties, so as to accurately predict the future development of the multilateral intellectual property treaties; on the other hand, the intellectual property in the existing multilateral treaties The interpretation analysis of the specific content of the law enforcement clause of the right is helpful to learn from and draw lessons from the scientific provisions, guard against its bad tendency, and provide a useful reference for the rational construction of the law enforcement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China.
In fact, it is not uncommon to interpret the law enforcement clauses in international intellectual property treaties in China, but there are few explanations on their rationality from the theoretical level, and on this basis, there are few discussions on the reasonable scope of international treaties for the law enforcement adjustment of intellectual property rights. It is not only the theoretical foundation of this paper, but also the determination of the nature and scope of the obligations of the enforcement provisions of the existing intellectual property treaties. The traditional theory of international law holds that the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a strict domestic matter, which is directly related to the state's sovereignty of law enforcement. It is necessary to find a "delicate" balance between state sovereignty and the binding of international treaty obligations. At the same time, intellectual property is a special monopoly right which has both the property of private rights and the function of public interests. The enforcement and relief of intellectual property rights must involve the intervention of state power, and it is necessary to balance the private incentive and public welfare of intellectual property rights, especially. When this balance must also be influenced by international factors from outside the country, it needs considerable flexibility and flexibility both in legislative attitude and in legislative technology to avoid the relevant treaty liability while adhering to the value orientation of domestic intellectual property policy as far as possible.
Starting with the concept, characteristics and functions of intellectual property law enforcement, this paper focuses on the adjustment of international multilateral treaties on the standards of intellectual property law enforcement. The dual attributes of the common welfare are analyzed, the differences between the common welfare and the traditional "human rights protection" and the particularity of the international protection means determined therefrom are analyzed, and the basic principles and necessary restrictions that should be followed in the degree, scope and manner of its involvement in a country's domestic law enforcement sovereignty are discussed, with emphasis on resolving the "whether or not" problem in the due field. Then, from a historical and empirical perspective, it examines the historical background and interests of the domestic enforcement obligations stipulated in the existing international intellectual property treaties, and the purposes and purposes of the relevant provisions, in particular those in Part III of TRIPS. Allow for a comprehensive investigation, combined with the general rules of interpretation of international treaties, from all the cases involving TRIPS enforcement clauses under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism up to now, summarize the basic attitude of the dispute settlement body, assist in understanding the accurate meaning of relevant enforcement clauses, and specifically analyze the specific transport of such disputes under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Finally, by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the existing enforcement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China, we should establish a scientific attitude towards such treaties, improve our legislative, judicial, administrative and customs procedures, and make adequate legal and technical preparations for China to deal with such disputes under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.
The first three chapters lay particular stress on theory and the latter two chapters lay particular stress on practice. The third chapter is not only the conclusion and foothold of theoretical analysis in the first two chapters, but also the premise and yardstick of practical investigation in the latter two chapters. It plays an important role in connecting the preceding and following chapters.
The first chapter is an overview of intellectual property law enforcement and its international treaty protection. It mainly introduces the concept, characteristics and functions of intellectual property law enforcement, and briefly introduces the international multilateral treaties which take TRIPS Agreement as the demarcation point, from basically not stipulating the standards of intellectual property law enforcement to densely and systematically arranging, and then in developed countries and development. The game of interests of the country has gradually been divided into two different development trends.
Chapter two is the theoretical basis for the adjustment of international multilateral treaties on intellectual property law enforcement.From the special property of intellectual property rights, the due meaning of procedural justice, the inevitable result of the development trend of humanization of international law under the background of globalization, the internal requirement of the principle that the treaties must abide by, this paper demonstrates the passing state of intellectual property law enforcement from four aspects. The rationality of the multilateral treaties is stipulated.
Chapter three is the challenge and reasonable construction of the traditional international law theory from the intellectual property law enforcement provisions in the international multilateral treaties. It mainly analyzes the restriction of the international multilateral treaties on the national law enforcement sovereignty and the extension of the connotation and extension of the obligations of the traditional international treaties. The enforcement provisions of intellectual property rights in multilateral treaties should follow such basic principles as respecting differences, balanced protection, feasibility of the overall mechanism and procedural justice, and coordinate with the provisions of entity rights of intellectual property rights to establish reasonable limits of authority and rules for interpretation.
Chapter Four is the analysis of the intellectual property law enforcement clauses of the major multilateral treaties. The article analyzes and evaluates the intellectual property law enforcement provisions of the multilateral intellectual property treaties before TRIPS Agreement and TRIPS Agreement itself and TRIPS-plus treaties represented by ACTA in stages, combining with classical cases. The analysis is the key content of this chapter. Apart from introducing the basic framework and specific requirements of the enforcement clauses of TRIPS Agreement, it also analyzes the relationship between the enforcement clauses of TRIPS Agreement and other provisions of TRIPS Agreement, and other basic principles and mechanisms of WTO. It also explores the enforcement clauses of the WTO Dispute Settlement Expert Group and the Appellate Body through specific cases. Attitude towards money.
The fifth chapter is about the impact and Countermeasures of international multilateral treaties on China's intellectual property law enforcement standards. It mainly introduces the current situation and characteristics of China's intellectual property law enforcement, and analyzes the provisions of the existing international multilateral treaties on intellectual property law enforcement, i.e. the enforcement clauses of TRIPS Agreement, the enforcement of TRIPS-plus promoted by developed countries and the advocacy of developing countries. Based on China's domestic and foreign realities, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to rationally cope with the international standards of intellectual property law enforcement and scientifically construct an intellectual property law enforcement system in line with China's national conditions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張加犁;;兩次世界大戰(zhàn)對(duì)國(guó)際法發(fā)展的影響[J];青春歲月;2011年12期

2 曾令良;;中國(guó)踐行國(guó)際法治30年:成就與挑戰(zhàn)[J];武大國(guó)際法評(píng)論;2011年01期

3 薄龍;;國(guó)際法中的“軟法”現(xiàn)象探究[J];群文天地;2011年12期

4 白中紅;;《能源憲章條約》的爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制研究[J];外交評(píng)論(外交學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2011年03期

5 姚娜;;淺析威斯特伐利亞體系對(duì)國(guó)際關(guān)系發(fā)展的重大貢獻(xiàn)[J];淮南師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年03期

6 ;[J];;年期

7 ;[J];;年期

8 ;[J];;年期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 劉繼勇;;國(guó)際法與國(guó)際關(guān)系論[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二○○九年第2輯）[C];2009年

2 馬德才;;格老秀斯及其對(duì)國(guó)際法的貢獻(xiàn)[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際公法卷）[C];2006年

3 孫章季;;國(guó)際法與和諧世界的構(gòu)建[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際公法卷）[C];2006年

4 何志鵬;;國(guó)際法治的中國(guó)立場(chǎng)[A];“2020年的國(guó)際法”暨中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者論壇會(huì)議論文集[C];2011年

5 向力;;論聯(lián)合國(guó)貨物運(yùn)輸法草案對(duì)條約沖突的應(yīng)對(duì)[A];2008全國(guó)博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（國(guó)際法）論文集——國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法、國(guó)際環(huán)境法分冊(cè)[C];2008年

6 劉志云;;中國(guó)國(guó)際法學(xué)的繁榮之路:一種引入國(guó)際關(guān)系理論分析的路徑[A];“2020年的國(guó)際法”暨中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者論壇會(huì)議論文集[C];2011年

7 馮彥;何大明;甘淑;顧穎;;跨境水分配及其生態(tài)閾值與國(guó)際法的關(guān)聯(lián)[A];中國(guó)地理學(xué)會(huì)2006年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文摘要集[C];2006年

8 宋健華;臧克蘭;郭珊;;解決國(guó)家之間在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的爭(zhēng)議的條約草案[A];專利法研究（1992）[C];1992年

9 陳維春;;危險(xiǎn)廢物越境轉(zhuǎn)移法律控制的國(guó)際法發(fā)展[A];資源節(jié)約型、環(huán)境友好型社會(huì)建設(shè)與環(huán)境資源法的熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題研究——2006年全國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)論文集（四）[C];2006年

10 王傳麗;;WTO——一個(gè)自給自足的法律體系——兼論一國(guó)四地經(jīng)貿(mào)關(guān)系新發(fā)展[A];《WTO法與中國(guó)論壇》文集——中國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)世界貿(mào)易組織法研究會(huì)年會(huì)論文集(二)[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 記者劉鵬;“70后”學(xué)術(shù)新銳展望2020國(guó)際法[N];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2011年

2 本報(bào)記者 汪閩燕;國(guó)際法發(fā)展應(yīng)注入更多“亞洲元素”[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

3 周薇 劉波;二戰(zhàn)中的國(guó)際法較量[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

4 本報(bào)記者 項(xiàng)錚;專家呼吁禁煙應(yīng)盡快立法[N];科技日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

5 本版編輯;畢生致力于國(guó)際法發(fā)展和世界和平進(jìn)步的大師[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

6 饒戈平;不斷發(fā)展的國(guó)際法[N];學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)報(bào);2000年

7 喻鋒;歐盟制憲新變化轉(zhuǎn)機(jī)抑或倒退？[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

8 本報(bào)記者　 張慎思;賈兵兵：從前南法律官員到DILA副主席[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2006年

9 陳麗平;國(guó)際條約締結(jié)內(nèi)幕：有斗爭(zhēng)也有妥協(xié)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

10 南開(kāi)大學(xué)副教授　宋志勇;論東京審判[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 趙麗;國(guó)際多邊條約知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)執(zhí)法研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

2 劉衡;國(guó)際法之治：從國(guó)際法治到全球治理[D];武漢大學(xué);2011年

3 張瑾;主權(quán)財(cái)富基金國(guó)際監(jiān)管制度法制化研究[D];上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué);2010年

4 姜延迪;國(guó)際海洋秩序與中國(guó)海洋戰(zhàn)略研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

5 韓纓;氣候變化國(guó)際法問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

6 萬(wàn)霞;外交保護(hù)制度研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2012年

7 李響;國(guó)際法視野下的中國(guó)海事行政執(zhí)法問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

8 薛磊;當(dāng)代國(guó)際法中的承認(rèn)制度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

9 吳錦標(biāo);國(guó)際法與國(guó)際秩序[D];山東大學(xué);2006年

10 溫融;應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化政府間合作法律問(wèn)題研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 馬文杰;論國(guó)際法不成體系[D];外交學(xué)院;2012年

2 楊茜雯;民用核能的國(guó)際法制度研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2012年

3 方煒;淺析國(guó)際法在核軍控進(jìn)程的地位和作用[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

4 李亞;二十一世紀(jì)國(guó)際法發(fā)展趨勢(shì)及中國(guó)的對(duì)策[D];大連海事大學(xué);2002年

5 史中偉;禁止反言在國(guó)際法中的適用問(wèn)題研究[D];南昌大學(xué);2009年

6 潘丹;從國(guó)際法角度看當(dāng)今中日東海爭(zhēng)端[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2011年

7 黃萃蕓;論條約保留制度的發(fā)展及其在中國(guó)的實(shí)踐[D];廈門(mén)大學(xué);2008年

8 趙允勇;論“對(duì)一切”義務(wù)在國(guó)際法院審判中的適用[D];青島大學(xué);2011年

9 李果;國(guó)際投資國(guó)民待遇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué);2008年

10 劉雪盈;關(guān)于當(dāng)代民族自決原則的思考[D];青島大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：2222337