庭前准备与庭审课件

单击此处编辑母版标题样式,单击此处编辑母版文本样式,第二级,第三级,第四级,第五级,*,*,庭前准备与庭审,唐功远,目录,第一部分,庭前准备工作概述,第二部分,仲裁员的思维方式,第三部分,国际仲裁程序和国内仲裁程序比较,第一部分,第一部分,庭前准备工作概述,程序性工作,阅卷,庭审提纲,A,B,C,D,文件归档,：制作,电子文档；,按照秘书交寄的顺序，将程序性文件和实体性申请书、答辩状、代理意见、证据等分类归档；,准备材料目录及记录收取时间。,开庭提醒,：,笔记本记录或手机应用。,查阅,授权：,注意,代理人的权限是否存在瑕疵,。,利冲,检索：,检查,是否存在需要披露或回避的,事项,。,1.1,程序性工作,布置工作,如需当事人进行部分庭前准备工作，与秘书沟通并做相应安排，如发布程序令、召开庭前会议、证据庭前交换、提供证人名单等。,阅读卷宗,关注：,当事人请求；,争议要点及当事人主要事实及理由：双方认可事实、双方分歧点；,细读证据：证据是否存在瑕疵、证据是否完整、证据是否有关联性。,制作阅卷笔录,事实部分：重点问题整理,赔偿请求部分：数据整理,法律和行业知识准备,法律检索,行业背景知识准备,待办,事项清单,1.2,阅卷,需与秘书沟通安排的事项,指导庭审程序的开展及实体,文题的,审理。,确保庭审高效、有序进行。,1.3,庭审提纲,避免遗漏问题。,庭审文件索引,重要文件、页码索引,争议要点总结,庭审时间表及时间分配,简要列明争议要点及待证明的重要问题。,各方当事人陈述、举证、质证、证人作证、总结陈词、调解时间分配。,第二部分,第二部分,仲裁员的思维方式,思维方式,利益平衡,恰当,救济,A,B,C,D,法,条主义,实用,主义,政治,分析,司法决定来源于法条,而不取决于法官的个人因素，如意识形态、性格和背景,以,法律的解释为准，排除法官自身的因素,使用三段论方法：大前提,+,小前提,+,结论,2.1,思维方式,结果导向，不受三段论限制。司法决定更关注决定产生的效果，而不是完全基于法条语言或先例。,法官，主要是联邦法官（特别是最高法院法官）的决定取决于其在案件中所持有的政治偏好。大部分研究试图证明法官的政治偏好来源于任命他们的总统背后的政党。,此理论假设法官在做决定时会受到周围的其他法官、,立法,者和公众的影响。,此,理论与立场分析类似。,D,E,经济分析,策略,分析,法官是一个理性的、寻求自身利益最大化的个体。会受到收入、时间、权限、威望、声誉、自身因素、工作内容和其他因素的影响。,遵循先例？,The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.Changes,such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture,have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage,affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential.These new insights have strengthened,not weakened,the institution.Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations,.,The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,and under the Due Process and Equal,Protection,Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.,While,the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change,individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.,But this Court is not a legislature.Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution,judges have power to say what the law is,not what it should be.The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise“neither force nor will but merely judgment.”,The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage.And a States decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.In short,our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage.The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples,or to retain the historic definition,.,The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Courts precedent.The majority expressly disclaims judicial“caution”and omits even a pretense of humility,openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own“new insight”into the“nature of injustice.”,As,a result,the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia,for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese,the Carthaginians and the Aztecs.Just who do we think we are?,Comment From the Economic-Posner,A change in public opinion was required to make the judicial creation of such a right,acceptable.The change occurred.By 2011 a majority of Americans supported authorizing same-sex marriage.,波斯纳：,Most cities and towns require dogs but not casts to be licensed.There are differences between the animalsDog owners,other than those who own cat as well,would like cats to have to be licensed,but do not argue that the failure of government to require that the“competing”animal be licensed deprives the dog owners of a constitutionally protected property right,or alternatively that it subjects them to unconstitutional discriminationJust as some people prefer cats to dogs,some people prefer Uber to Yellow Cab,Flash Cab,Checker Cab,et al.They prefer one business model to another.,Indeed when new technologies,or new business methods appear,a common result is the decline or even disappearance of the old.Were the old deemed to have a constitutional right to preclude the entry of the new into the markets of the old,economic progress might grind to a halt.Instead of taxis we might have horse and buggies;instead of the telephone,the telegraph;instead of the computers,slide rules.Obsolescence would equal entitlement.,案例一,:,网约车,2.2,利益平衡,当一方被诉违反竞业禁止协议,需要提供什么证据支持业务构成竞争,?,优势证据规则,卖方不承认参与到相关竞争业务中，尽管没有直接证据，但间接证据显示卖方有参与到相关业务中，且这些间接证据形成了完成证据链,买方还提供卖方的社交媒体账户，显示卖方经营一家网络店，销售与买方类似的产品和服务,买方还提供证据证明卖方还申请了与买方类似的业务商标,当证明,存在竞争,在金钱损失不确定的情形下,如何判定损失赔偿的范围,?,买方尚未遭受营业额降低、利润丢失的经济损失，损失赔偿的范围较难确定,竞业,禁止协议规定违约将处以上一年度利润,50%,的违约金,合同法,114,条违约金调整条款,仲裁庭裁决支持,10%,的违约金，向买方提供救济并警示卖方在未来不再从事类似业务。,案例二,:,竞业禁止的违约救济,2.3,恰当,救济,第三部分,第三部分,国际仲裁程序和国内仲裁程序比较,国际仲裁程序概览,仲裁庭的角色和责任,3.1,国际,仲裁,程序,概览,1,Initiation of an Arbitration