The Rise and Decline of the Reversal of the Burden of Proof in China's Medical Negligence Law: A Political Economy of Lawmaking Perspective
An issue of central importance to the medical negligence law reforms in China over the past decade is the allocation of the burden of proof between the plaintiff patient and the defendant medical care provider in medical negligence actions. From a political economy of lawmaking perspective, this article examines the evolution of the burden of proof rules, with a focus on the reversal rule developed by the judiciary. Drawing extensively on firsthand legislative materials, this article argues that the successful lobbying of the medical profession in the legislative process leading to the enactment of the 2010 Tort Liability Law explains the nonadoption of a full-blown reversal of the burden of proof rule for medical negligence actions in the law.
Tort Law and Burden of Proof — Comparative Aspects. A Special Case for Enterprise Liability?
It has often been pointed out that decision making in law, rather than being concerned with complicated legal issues, is concerned with fact finding. As a supreme court judge once put it: “Deciding a legal case is about three things: facts, facts and facts”. Precisely for this reason are rules on burden of proof of enormous practical importance. Thus, rules on burden of proof come into play when there is uncertainty as to the facts of the case.
Protecting Marine Biodiversity on the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles
States are expending significant effort to chart the extent of their continental shelves where these extend beyond 200 nautical miles. As more is understood about marine biodiversity on the outer continental shelf, states may wish to regulate the use of biodiversity for the purposes of conservation or for future exploitation. This article identifies potential threats to marine biodiversity on the continental shelf, explores whether conservation is a legitimate purpose for exercising coastal state rights over the outer continental shelf under the Law of the Sea Convention, and considers the various legal rules that coastal states may use to protect marine biodiversity. The article concludes that the continental shelf regime is undesirably vague in some instances but that coastal states have a legal basis for taking action to regulate activities that impact the marine biodiversity of the outer continental shelf.