大家
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明]
郭国汀律师专栏
·A Mild Shanghai Lawyer and His Accidental Crusade
·郭国汀从最佳海事律师到人权律师 【人物】
***政治学研究
·政治的基本概念
·正义的学说
·正义的第一原则:政治权力的合法性
·正义概念的进化与发展
·人民反抗暴政的革命权利
·当代世界政治现状
·独裁专权(即威权)与独裁统治及极权暴政
·政治权力的限制与平衡原理
·政治文化与政治
·什么是政治形态
·民主法治及权力
·True meaning of the Republicanism
·Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges
·如何制约流氓暴君下屠杀令扑灭宪政民主大革命?
·关于成立临时或流亡政府我的原则与立场
·公平游戏规则公平竞争是第一价值原则
·中国民主运动要不要遵守公平游戏规则?
·中国民运长期四分五裂的根源何在?
·郭国汀:唯有程序正义才能根治中国民运四分五裂顽症
·民运内部必须是平等尊重基础上充分争论协商妥协式的真诚合作
·自私是否人的本性?
·暴君与暴政
·暴力革命与和平演变的前提与条件
·关于暴力革命答深山质疑
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!/郭国汀
·语言风格——关于袁红冰改良还是革命的争论
·就袁红冰之《改良还是革命》与申先生的论战/郭国汀
·英雄人格哲学—袁红冰《自由在落日中》读后
·划时代的政论——简评袁红冰《改良,还是革命?》
·为什么袁红冰之《改良,还是革命?》是划时代的政论?
·再论政治案低调消音妥协辩护论的严重危害性
·再论政治案件低调消音妥协辩护论的危害性引起争论
·政治案辩护律师的最佳策略
·驳政治肮脏论
·文字狱与极权专制体制
·暴政与人种的优劣/新南郭
·虚伪是极权专制的必然付产品
·极权专制政体与思想家
·最暴虐无道的政府!/南郭
·郭国汀:歌功颂德或批评批判?
·判断一个政权合法性的公认标准
·判断政府合法性的普世公认标准 郭国汀
·中国律师理所应当关心政治 郭国汀
·政治体制的根本问题
·中国的前途在于专制改良还是政治民主革命?
·西方现代政治民主的基本要件
·郭国汀: 政府无权杀人!
·政府绝对无权武力镇压(屠杀)和平集会示威游行或罢工的公民
·国民有权推翻暴力镇压(屠杀)和平抗议民众的任何政府
·中国历史上不存在极权
·民主政治的终极目标是自由——答尼采黄昏君的质疑/南郭
·极权专制独裁者与知识分子
·与网友谈论民主政治与政权合法性
·政府不得滥杀和平请愿公民的最新国际公约
·中共极权专制暴政祸国殃民绝对乏善可陈
·郭律师评价中国律师诉讼及司法体制现状
***(40)宪政研究
·什么是宪政?
·什么是共和?
·宪政的实质
·分權制衡理論的历史淵源
·中国自由文化运动与宪政研究
·The Arguments For and Against the Notwithstanding Clause
·Freedom is not free but it is costly
·宪法改革的设想 南郭提要
·联邦共和民主宪政体制是美国经久强盛不衰的原因
·党化党控教育是中共祸国殃民的一大罪恶
·立宪时代的法政哲学思考提要
·有限政府与法治宪政
·联邦主义要旨
·It’s Not Patriotic to Violate the Constitution
·An Imperial Presidency Based on Constitutional Quicksand
·US Constitution revolution for real democracy
·One of the major writer whose legal thought Influence the Americas Founding Fathers
·Beyond the Constitution
·Philosophy Constitutionalism
·USA Constitution is in grave danger
·Constitutional Interpretation
·The Bill of Rights
***(41)民主研究
·美国宪政民主的基本要素
· 政治民主机制的最新发展--监督民主
· 序《民主导论》
·民主的真实含义
·自由宪政民主政治的七项实质要件
·民主的实质
·谁是真正的人类政治民主之父?
·民主就是[山头林立]?!
·共和比民主更为根本
·共和民主宪政要旨
·什么是联邦主义民主宪政?
·我的民主朝圣之旅
·民主的灯塔永放光茫
·古希腊雅典民主政体
·伯拉图亚里士多德论古希腊民主体制
·伯拉图论共产主义
***(39)法治研究
·法治论/郭国汀
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明

   加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明
   Statement in Support of Gao Zhisheng and World Wide Hunger Strike by Lawyers
   I wish to add my voice to those of lawyers and human rights organizations throughout the world in condemning the shocking and unceasing affronts to human rights and the rule of law perpetrated by the Government of China against lawyers of conscience.
   
   

   China is obligated both by its own laws, which the Government of China routinely ignores, and by international treaties and conventions binding China both as a signatory and also as a member state of the United Nations, to protect lawyers and ensure they are free to carry out their professional duties as advocates for their clients. The Chinese government has made a cynical mockery of all its obligations to lawyers and human rights advocates, in total violation of its obligations under both Chinese and International Law.
   
   
   The Chinese government today is arguably the worst violator of human rights on this planet, in partnership with western corporations such as Microsoft, Nortel, Yahoo, Cisco and Google. Many western governments, with an eye on their “market share” in China, have obsequiously fawned at the feet of the Chinese dictators and willingly assisted those dictators in promoting their claims that the human rights situation in China has never been better.
   
   
   
   The last Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, shamelessly congratulated the Beijing regime on its alleged progress in promoting human rights and implementing the “rule of law”, in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that the Beijing dictators are crushing human rights as never before and that they are ruthlessly determined to prevent the rule of law at any cost. Indeed, both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien before him prattled on incessantly about the “great progress” in Chinese human rights under the Beijing dictatorship even as Beijing was implementing a policy of full scale genocide against practitioners of Falun Gong.
   
   
   The first prominent human rights lawyer in China was Guo Guoting. His unbelievable courage in risking his own life and standing up to the brutal government of China has inspired a number of other honest lawyers throughout China to stand up for the rule of law, for human rights, for freedom of religion and political belief, against the Beijing regime. Today, Gao Zhisheng leads the fight inside China, while Guo Guoting, now resident in Canada, coordinates the international effort of lawyers everywhere to support their beleaguered and persecuted colleagues in China.
   
   
   Gao Zhisheng, like Guo Guoting, is a man with a level of courage probably beyond the comprehension of anyone not intimately familiar with the brutality and mendacity of the Beijing regime and the Chinese Communist Party. The Beijing regime has prevented him from practising his profession and has recently attempted to kill him. Indeed, were it not for the international attention and support he has received, the Chinese government would have succeeded in murdering him already.
   
   
   Gao Zhisheng spoke out on behalf of Falun Gong practitioners who are denied by the Chinese government their constitutional right to legal defence. He wrote an open letter to President Hu Jintao, specifically addressing the fact that these practitioners are citizens of China and must therefore have the same right to legal defence as all other Chinese citizens (which in practice is of little assistance to any citizen in any case). Mr. Gao also met in December with the United Nations emissary to China who had been sent to investigate reports of torture and other human rights abuses.
   
   
   Shortly thereafter, the Chinese authorities confiscated Mr. Gao’s licence to practise law, and closed down his law office, preventing the other ten lawyers in Mr. Gao’s office from practising their profession. The transparently false justification for these actions was that Mr. Gao had failed to report a change of address when renewing the registration of his law office!
   
   
   Since that time, several other courageous human rights lawyers from all over China have been arrested, incarcerated, harassed, threatened, and in some cases beaten, simply for discharging their professional duties as lawyers. Moreover, a recent attempt was made on Gao Zhisheng’s life, an attempt almost certainly the work of the Chinese police and military.
   
   
   Mr. Gao has now initiated a protest campaign of rotating hunger strikes by lawyers in several cities of China and Ms Sheng Xue has called on lawyers throughout the world to join this movement.
   
   
   We support Mr. Gao. We support the world wide hunger strike by lawyers of conscience. We support the demand that the Chinese government be held to at least minimum international standards of decency and civilization. And we call upon the new Government of Canada to reverse the last government’s shameful complicity in the crimes of the Beijing regime. We hope that the new Canadian government will express its support for Gao Zhisheng, for the world wide hunger strike by lawyers of conscience, and for the demand that Beijing recognize the rule of law and respect at least the minimal international norms of human rights and basic decency.
   
   Clive Ansley
   

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场

;   “保险财产的所有人或其他对其有利益或有责任的当事人由于海上风险的原因对第三方产生的任何责任。”
   在《海上保险法》第74条“对第三方责任”的标题下规定:
   “Where the assured has effected an insurance in express terms against any liability to a third party, the measure of indemnify, subject to any express provision in the policy, is the amount paid or payable by him to such third party in respect of such liability”.
    “被保险人已通过明示条款对第三方的任何责任进行投保,根据保险单上明示条款的规定,获得补偿的数额是其就这一责任向第三方支付或应支付的数额。”
    如果需要权威论点的话,这些法定条款对今天的包括碰撞责任在内的第三方责任保险便是权威。
   协会碰撞责任条款(Institute Collision Liability Clause)
   若未考查其历史,碰撞责任条款似乎是一个相当混杂的条款,让我们回到条款本身,即1983年10月1日协会船舶定期保险条款第8条。虽然其基本特点保持未变,该条款的格式要比船舶碰撞条款清晰和简单的多,保险人不想修改或改变原先船舶碰撞条款的适用范围和含义。四分之三(赔偿责任)的碰撞责任条款全文如下:
   8.1 The underwriters agree to indemnify the Assured for three-fourths of any sum or sums paid by the Assured to any other person or persons by reason of the Assured becoming legally liable by way of damages for
   8.1.1 loss of or damage to any other vessel or property on any other vessel
   8.1.2 delay to or loss of use of any such other vessel or property thereon
   8.1.3 general average of, salvage of , or salvage under contract of, any such other vessel or property thereon,
    where such payment by the Assured is in consequence of the Vessel hereby insured coming into collision with any other vessel.
   8.2 The indemnity provided by this Clause 8 shall be in addition to the indemnity provided by the other terms and conditions of this insurance and shall be subject to the following provisions:
   8.2.1 Where the insured Vessel is in collision with another vessel and both vessels are to blame, then, unless the liability of one or both vessels becomes limited by law, the indemnity under this Clause 8 shall be calculated on the principle of cross-liabilities as if the respective Owners had been compelled to pay to each other such proportion of each other’s damages as may have been properly allowed in ascertaining the balance or sum payable by or to the Assured in consequence of the collision.

[上一页][目前是第2页][下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场