Recently, The Paper received reports that the dissertations of two doctoral students from China University of Political Science and Law were highly similar, and they were completed only one year apart. In addition, the authors of the two papers are from the same discipline under the guidance of the same supervisor and graduated from the same major, with only one semester difference between them. The latest development of
, the official Weibo of China University of Political Science and Law @China University of Political Science and Law announced that the school attaches great importance to it and has instructed relevant departments to launch an investigation. If found to be true, it will be dealt with seriously.
The Paper downloaded these two doctoral theses from China National Knowledge Infrastructure. They are "Monograph on State Immunity" (hereinafter referred to as "Zhang Luli's thesis") by Zhang Luli, a 2005 doctoral graduate of the International Law Department of China University of Political Science and Law and International Law of China University of Political Science and Law. Wang Haihong, a 2006 doctoral graduate of the major, wrote "Research on National Exemption of Issues" (hereinafter referred to as "Wang Haihong's paper").
Zhang Luli's paper cover
Wang Haihong's paper cover
Zhang Luli's paper was completed in March 2005, and Wang Haihong's paper was completed in March 2006. Wang Haihong's paper was one year later than Zhang Luli's paper.
The Paper reporter compared the table of contents of the two papers and found that Wang Haihong's paper is divided into five chapters. Among them, the second and third sections of Chapter 1, and the titles of all the subsections of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 can be found in the table of contents of Zhang Luli's paper. Find the section title with exactly the same content.
In addition, the keywords of Zhang Luli’s paper are “state immunity, restricted immunity, the subject of state immunity, exceptions to state immunity, and execution immunity.” The keywords of Wang Haihong’s paper are the first four of the keywords in Zhang Luli’s paper, which only do not include “execution immunity.”
What’s more noteworthy is that there are large similarities in the text and bibliography of the two papers.
On the morning of December 20, The Paper called the School of International Law at China University of Political Science and Law regarding the highly similar nature of the two doctoral theses. A teacher from the graduate affairs office of the college told The Paper that the college had not been aware of the relevant situation before and would conduct further investigation and verification.
"In addition, we are a second-level college, and at that time (the time when the two papers were completed), our college should not have been established yet. Regarding this matter, we should report it to the school's graduate school." The female teacher said.
The "School Introduction" of the School of International Law shows that the history of the School of International Law of China University of Political Science and Law can be traced back to the Department of International Economic Law established on March 12, 1989. In 2002, in order to meet the needs of my country's legal education and my country's economic construction, China University of Political Science and Law decided to establish the School of International Law on the basis of the original Department of International Economic Law.
Subsequently, The Paper repeatedly called the Office of Degree Office and General Department of the Graduate School of China University of Political Science and Law, but no one answered.
On December 20, The Paper contacted Zhang Luli and Wang Haihong for an interview with their doctoral thesis advisors, Zhou Zhonghai, a professor at China University of Political Science and Law. Zhou Zhonghai entrusted his wife to tell The Paper, "He has retired for many years. As far as he knows, there is no such thing and this situation does not exist." "Exemption" is the research object, and the title is similar. The title of Zhang Luli's paper is "Monograph on State Immunity", and the title of Wang Haihong's paper is "Research on State Immunity Issues". The
comparison found that the text content of the two papers was highly similar in many places, and many paragraphs were almost word for word.
Screenshot of the first chapter of Zhang Luli’s paper, “The Complexity of State Immunities.”
Screenshot of part of the first chapter of Wang Haihong's paper "The Complexity of State Immunity".
Take the first chapter as an example. The first chapter of Zhang Luli’s paper discusses the “basic theory of state immunity.” One section explains the meaning and complexity of state immunity. Zhang Luli's paper begins with "The Complexity of State Immunity": "From the perspective of international law, it is difficult to simply attribute the issue of state immunity to international customary law , treaty law or domestic law. In fact, when dealing with international law issues, Nor should a simple classification be used, but a comprehensive study of different types of legal sources should be conducted.The complexity of the issue of state immunity is mainly reflected in the following: on the one hand, different legal sources of the issue of state immunity show different trends; international customary law on this issue has not been formed; there is no generally accepted rule on state immunity by all countries in the world. International treaties; it is also impossible to derive universally applicable international legal rules on state immunity from state practice. On the other hand, the same legal sources also show different trends: whether international customary law develops along the path of state immunity as the premise and limited immunity as exceptions, or the opposite, is still an open question; in relevant international law, it is still an open question. In the absence of agreement on a treaty, the European Convention on State Immunities, which has come into force, the draft treaties drafted by the United Nations International Law Commission and relevant well-known academic groups have also shown conflicting and unbalanced trends; the positions and practices of various countries have also shown various conflicts. and signs of imbalance. Therefore, the theory and practice of state immunity are currently experiencing unprecedented turmoil and challenges. "
Section 2 of Chapter 1 of Wang Haihong's paper also discusses "the significance and complexity of state immunity." When specifically discussing the "Complexity of State Immunity" section, Wang Haihong's paper writes: "From the perspective of international law, It is difficult to simply attribute the issue of state immunity to international customary law, treaty law or domestic law. In fact, when dealing with international law issues, we should not use a simple classification method, but should conduct a comprehensive study on different types of legal sources. The complexity of the issue of state immunity is mainly reflected in the following: on the one hand, the different legal sources of the issue of state immunity show different trends: international customary law on this issue has not been formed; there is no generally accepted rule on state immunity by all countries in the world. International treaties; it is also impossible to derive universally applicable international legal rules on state immunity from state practice. On the other hand, the same legal sources also show different trends: whether international customary law develops along the path of state immunity as the premise and limited immunity as exceptions, or the opposite, is still an open question; in relevant international law, it is still an open question. In the absence of agreement on a treaty, the European Convention on State Immunities, which has come into force, the draft treaties drafted by the United Nations International Law Commission and relevant well-known academic groups have also shown conflicting and unbalanced trends; the positions and practices of various countries have also shown various conflicts. and signs of imbalance. Therefore, the theory and practice of state immunity are currently experiencing unprecedented turmoil and challenges. "
Comparison found that the above two paragraphs, including punctuation, are completely consistent.
Screenshot of the ending of the first chapter of Zhang Luli's paper "The Complexity of State Immunities."
Screenshot of part of the first chapter of Wang Haihong's paper "The Complexity of State Immunity".
In addition, Zhang Luli’s paper wrote at the end of the section “The Complexity of State Immunity”: “Therefore, based on the elements that establish international customary law, that is, practice and opinio juris, the following two conclusions can be drawn: First, absolute The doctrine of immunity has not become an international customary law; secondly, there is no such customary law in international law, that is, under any circumstances, a domestic court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving a foreign country. The sovereign behavior of a foreign country is still protected by immunity. However, non-sovereign acts of foreign countries cannot escape the jurisdiction of the courts of the country where they are located. Third, although the current practice and opinio juris of all countries unanimously deny the doctrine of absolute immunity, due to the specific implementation of limited immunity in various countries (the core issue is how to distinguish it). There are serious differences between sovereign acts and non-sovereign acts), so the doctrine of qualified immunity has not become a rule of international customary law. In short, the traditional customary rules of state immunity and the developing and turbulent state immunity rules today have occurred in many aspects. Qualitative changes have made the main legal sources of state immunity unclear and more complex."
The end of the second section of the first chapter of Wang Haihong's paper is expressed as follows: "Therefore, based on the elements of international customary law, that is, practice and opinio juris, the following two conclusions can be drawn: First, absolute immunity doctrine has not become international customary law; secondly, there is no such customary law in international law, that is, domestic courts cannot exercise jurisdiction at all over litigation involving a foreign country under any circumstances. The sovereign acts of foreign countries are still protected by immunity, but the non-sovereign acts of foreign countries cannot escape the jurisdiction of the courts of the country where they are located. Third, although the current practice and opinio juris of all countries unanimously deny the doctrine of absolute immunity, since countries have serious differences on the specific implementation of restricted immunity (the core issue is how to distinguish sovereign acts from non-sovereign acts), the doctrine of limited immunity does not exist either. Become a rule of international customary law. In short, the traditional customary rules of state immunity and today's developing and turbulent state immunity rules have undergone qualitative changes in many aspects, which makes the main legal sources of state immunity unclear and more complicated. "
The above two paragraphs, including the explanations and annotations in parentheses, are word for word.
Let’s look at the comparison of the second chapters of the two papers.
A screenshot of the "Important National Practice" part of the second chapter of Zhang Luli's paper.
Screenshot of the "Important State Practices" section of the second chapter of Wang Haihong's paper.
The title of the second chapter of Zhang Luli's paper is "Historical Origin, Development and Current Situation of State Immunity". When discussing the section of "Important State Practices", Zhang Luli. The paper takes Belgium, , Italy, Egypt, the United Kingdom, the United States and France as examples to introduce the practice of these countries.
takes the practice of Egypt as an example. Zhang Luli’s paper writes: “Egypt’s formation of the principle of limited immunity has also been very important. played an important role. Interestingly, foreign-related litigation cases in Egypt are tried not only by Egyptian judges but also by a large number of judges selected from among foreign nationals. Therefore, the judgment of the Egyptian mixed court not only represents Egypt’s views on the issue of state immunity, but also reflects the views of judges from a large number of other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and France. It is worth noting that during the same period, the courts in these countries clearly sided with the doctrine of absolute immunity. Although the hybrid tribunal is international in composition, it is essentially a domestic judicial body. However, the views of different judges on different cases at different stages can be summarized as their consistent views on the basic principles of national law. "
Zhang Luli's paper also cited a specific case for illustration: "In 1930, a mixed court composed of a French chief judge, an American judge, a British judge, and two Egyptian judges heard the case of 'Turkish Tobacco Monopoly Company et al. v. Turkey In the Tobacco Joint Monopoly Bureau case, the Turkish government, as the receiver of the Turkish Tobacco Monopoly Company, is a co-defendant in the case. It proposed in the lawsuit that the company is a Turkish government agency and should enjoy immunity. The court followed its previous judgment that the conduct of a company running a tobacco monopoly was irrelevant to sovereignty, and the outcome of the case resulted in jurisdiction over the Turkish government. It is worth noting that the three foreign judges who formed the tribunal were from countries that were supporters of absolute immunity at the time. "
Wang Haihong also cited examples from several countries in the section "Important State Practices" in the second chapter of his paper. When introducing the situation of Egypt's state immunity, he wrote: "Egypt also played an important role in the formation of the principle of restricted immunity. effect. Interestingly, foreign-related litigation cases in Egypt are tried not only by Egyptian judges but also by a large number of judges selected from among foreign nationals. Therefore, the judgment of the Egyptian mixed court not only represents Egypt’s views on the issue of state immunity, but also reflects the views of judges from a large number of other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and France. It is worth noting that during the same period, the courts in these countries clearly sided with the doctrine of absolute immunity. Although the hybrid tribunal is international in composition, it is essentially a domestic judicial body.However, the views of different judges on different cases at different stages can be summarized as their consistent views on the basic principles of national law. "
Then Wang Haihong's paper went on to write: "In 1930, a mixed court composed of a French chief judge, an American judge, a British judge, and two Egyptian judges heard the case of 'Turkish Tobacco Monopoly Company et al. v. Turkish Tobacco Joint Venture Monopoly' Bureau' case, the Turkish government, as the receiver of the Turkish Tobacco Monopoly Company, is a co-defendant in the case. It proposed in the lawsuit that the company is a Turkish government agency and should enjoy immunity. The court followed its previous judgment that the conduct of a company running a tobacco monopoly was irrelevant to sovereignty, and the outcome of the case resulted in jurisdiction over the Turkish government. It is worth noting that the three foreign judges who formed the tribunal were from countries that were supporters of absolute immunity at the time. "
Screenshot of the section "Various Agencies of the State and its Government" in Chapter 3 of Zhang Luli's paper.
Screenshot of the section "Various Agencies of the State and its Government" in Chapter 3 of Wang Haihong's paper.
Discussion of Chapter 3 of Zhang Luli's paper Among them, Zhang Luli’s paper has a statement in the second section of the chapter “Various Agencies of States and Their Governments”: “The United Nations International Law Commission considers the various organs of states and their governments. The reason why government agencies are listed as the primary subjects enjoying immunity is based on the following two reasons. On the one hand, the organizational structure of the country is an integral part of the country as a whole; on the other hand, the organizational structure of the country meets the following two requirements: The conditions then create a single entity that enjoys immunity: (1) acting for and on behalf of the state; (2) exercising sovereign powers and governmental functions. The state and its various organs of government include the state itself, the monarch or head of state of a sovereign state, the central government, government departments and heads of government, agencies or subordinate agencies and offices of government departments acting in their own name or through various agencies of the government. or bureaus and missions representing the country, including diplomatic corps, consuls, permanent missions and envoys. "
Wang Haihong's paper writes in the third section of Chapter 3 entitled "Various Agencies of the State and its Government": "The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property lists the various organs of the state and its government as the primary The subject enjoying immunity is an affirmation of the long-term practice of various countries and is also based on the following two reasons. On the one hand, the country's organizational structure is an integral part of the country as a whole; on the other hand, the country's organizational structure forms a single entity that enjoys immunity after meeting the following two conditions: (1) Acting for the country and Represent the name of the country; (2) Exercise sovereign power and government functions. The state and its various organs of government include the state itself, the monarch or head of state of a sovereign state, the central government, government departments and heads of government, agencies or subordinate agencies and offices of government departments acting in their own name or through various agencies of the government. or bureaus and missions representing the country, including diplomatic corps, consuls, permanent missions and envoys. "
The above two paragraphs, except for the difference between "United Nations International Law Commission" and "United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property" at the beginning, and Wang Haihong's paper later added the sentence "It is an affirmation of the long-term practice of various countries", the other The content is completely consistent.
Screenshot of the section "Legal Status of National Enterprises" in Zhang Luli's paper.
Screenshot of the section "Legal Status of National Enterprises" in Chapter 3 of Zhang Luli's paper.
Take another example, Chapter 3 of Zhang Luli's paper. The title of the third section is "Legal Status of State Enterprises". When discussing the "relationship between state enterprises and state exempt subjects", Zhang Luli's paper writes: "The state often engages in transactions with foreign countries through state enterprises, and the reason for this is sometimes entirely. Based on commercial considerations, national enterprises are sometimes used as an indispensable tool in economic development policy. Whether state enterprises can claim state immunity has always been controversial in theory and practice. There are two main arguments regarding whether state enterprises can enjoy state immunity.According to the traditional theory of absolute immunity, as long as a state-owned enterprise has state status, it is certainly qualified to claim and enjoy state immunity. However, the theory of qualified immunity holds that whether a state enterprise can enjoy immunity is mainly based on whether the enterprise engages in sovereign behavior. Usually, those who use the legal status, corporate organization, litigation capacity and degree of government control of national enterprises as considerations in judging whether to grant immunity are called structuralists, while the nature of the activities engaged in by national enterprises is used as the criterion to judge whether to grant immunity. This is called functionalism. "
Chapter 3 of Wang Haihong's paper also discusses "the legal status of national enterprises." One paragraph reads: "The country often engages in transactions with foreign countries through national enterprises. The reason is sometimes purely based on commercial considerations, and sometimes it is the use of national enterprises to as an indispensable tool in economic development policy. Whether state enterprises can claim state immunity has been controversial in theory. There are two main arguments regarding whether state enterprises can enjoy state immunity. According to the traditional theory of absolute immunity, as long as a state-owned enterprise has state status, it is certainly qualified to claim and enjoy state immunity. However, the theory of qualified immunity holds that whether a state enterprise can enjoy immunity is mainly based on whether the enterprise engages in sovereign behavior. Usually, those who use the legal status, corporate organization, litigation ability and degree of government control of national enterprises as considerations in judging whether to grant immunity are called structuralism, while the nature of the behavior engaged in by national enterprises is used as the criterion to judge whether to grant immunity. This is called functionalism. "
The two paragraphs above have only one word difference. Zhang Luli's paper writes "theory and", while Wang Haihong's paper writes "theoretically."
Chapter 5 of Zhang Luli's paper and Chapter 4 of Wang Haihong's paper both discuss "exceptions to state immunity" ", there are many similarities.
Screenshot of the "Overview" part of the first section of Chapter 5 of Zhang Luli's paper.
Screenshot of the "Overview" part of the first section of Chapter 4 of Wang Haihong's paper.
For example, Chapter 5 of Zhang Luli's paper The “Overview” section of the section reads: “In terms of treaty practice, whether multilateral or bilateral treaties, they often contain clauses that states that countries cannot claim jurisdictional immunity when engaging in commercial transactions. Typical examples include the series of Treaties of Friendship and Commerce and Navigation signed by the United States, the former Soviet Union and other countries and the 1972 European Convention on State Immunities. The United Nations International Law Commission will, without exception, regard commercial transactions as its main normative object. The practices of various countries also attach great importance to this issue. In terms of domestic legislation of various countries, the national immunity legislation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Pakistan, South Africa, Canada, Australia and other countries all list foreign commercial activities as the main objects of restricted immunity. In the judicial practice of various countries, there are also a large number of judgments denying that countries enjoy jurisdictional immunity when engaging in commercial transactions. For example, there are judgments in Belgium, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Egypt and Pakistan in which courts have denied jurisdictional immunity for states engaging in commercial transactions. The above developments are sufficient to illustrate that it has become a common trend for countries not to claim jurisdictional immunity in lawsuits arising from foreign legal persons or natural persons engaging in commercial transactions. "
Wang Haihong's paper, Chapter 4, Section 1 "Overview" also contains a paragraph that states: "In terms of treaty practice, whether it is a multilateral treaty or a bilateral treaty, they often contain clauses that states that countries cannot claim jurisdictional immunity when engaging in commercial transactions. . Typical examples include the series of Treaties of Friendship and Commerce and Navigation signed by the United States, the former Soviet Union and other countries and the 1972 European Convention on State Immunities. The United Nations International Law Commission will, without exception, regard commercial transactions as its main normative object. The practices of various countries also attach great importance to this issue. In terms of domestic legislation of various countries, the national immunity legislation of the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Pakistan, South Africa, Canada, Australia and other countries all list foreign commercial activities as the main objects of restricted immunity. In the judicial practice of various countries, there are also a large number of judgments denying that countries enjoy jurisdictional immunity when engaging in commercial transactions.For example, there are judgments in Belgium, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Egypt and Pakistan in which courts have denied jurisdictional immunity for states engaging in commercial transactions. The above developments are sufficient to illustrate that it has become a common trend for countries not to claim jurisdictional immunity in lawsuits arising from foreign legal persons or natural persons engaging in commercial transactions. "
The content of the above two paragraphs is exactly the same.
Screenshot of part of the content of Chapter 5, Section 4 of Zhang Luli's paper "The third exception to state immunity: employment contract".
Wang Haihong's paper Chapter 4, Section 4 "The third exception to state immunity: Employment Screenshot of part of the contract.
In addition, Zhang Luli’s paper wrote at the end of Chapter 5, Section 4, “Exception 3 of State Immunity: Employment Contract”: “On the issue of the relationship between employment contracts and State immunity, the differences between countries The biggest disagreement is whether and to what extent government employees have the right to sue the employing state in the forum state. The current state of practice and legislation in the above-mentioned countries shows that although there are no international law principles regarding the status of foreign state employees, relevant jurisprudence often only regards employment contracts as a special type of commercial (private law) contracts. In addition, courts generally grant immunity to foreign states in respect of employment contracts involving diplomatic and consular personnel performing the sovereign powers of the state. Virtually all countries have a strong claim to the power to regulate their officers serving abroad. At present, the state does not seem to be inclined to agree to expand the restrictive conditions for the application of state immunity exceptions to employment contracts, that is, the exceptions to state immunity shall not be applied to employment contracts that directly perform functions of government authority. "
Wang Haihong's paper ends with Chapter 4, Section 4 "Exception 3 of State Immunity: Employment Contract": "To sum up, on the relationship between employment contracts and State immunity, the biggest difference between countries is that, Whether and to what extent government employees have the right to sue the employing State in the forum State. The current state of practice and legislation in the above-mentioned countries shows that although there are no international law principles regarding the status of foreign state employees, relevant jurisprudence often only regards employment contracts as a special type of commercial (private law) contracts. In addition, courts generally grant immunity to foreign states in respect of employment contracts involving diplomatic and consular personnel performing the sovereign powers of the state. Virtually all countries have a strong claim to the power to regulate their officers serving abroad. At present, the state does not seem to be inclined to agree to expand the restrictive conditions for the application of state immunity exceptions to employment contracts, that is, the exceptions to state immunity shall not apply to employment contracts that directly perform functions of government authority. "
Comparing the above two paragraphs, we found that Wang Haihong's paper is completely consistent except for the addition of "summary" and the difference between "employment" and "employment".
Many paragraphs in the conclusion part are consistent
In addition, the two papers There are also multiple consistent paragraphs at the end of the article.
Screenshot of the last two paragraphs of Zhang Luli’s paper.
Screenshot of the last two paragraphs of Wang Haihong’s paper.
The last two paragraphs of Zhang Luli’s paper read: “For the future development of the Convention, we will. We will wait and see, but our country cannot wait for its results and should take action on the issue of jurisdictional immunity of the country and its property. In today's world, the trend of economic globalization continues to intensify and international business activities become more and more frequent. Countries will inevitably encounter the issue of immunity of the state and its property. Therefore, many countries have formulated special legislation on state immunity to provide better conditions for their diplomatic practice and judicial practice. Practice provides legal basis. However, our country lacks a special legislative law regarding state immunity, which lags far behind the needs of our country’s foreign exchanges, leaving our country with no basis to rely on when facing matters involving immunity of foreign countries and their property. Even if the Convention takes effect in most countries in the future, there will still be many issues left to be dealt with by the domestic laws of each country. Therefore, our country should avoid leaving legislative blind spots in this field, learn from international legislation and relevant foreign legislative experience, and combine it with its own The draft convention has been formed and a special legislation on state immunity will be introduced as soon as possible.In short, the issue of state immunity is still in the process of continuous development. On this issue, China should resolve the relationship between principle and flexibility, that is, it must not only adhere to the international legal principle of state immunity, but also promote the universality of state immunity. The establishment of international conventions requires flexible and diverse measures to be taken in actual international civil and commercial activities to coordinate conflicts of interest with other countries and their natural or legal persons on this issue, so as to protect our country in international civil and commercial exchanges. sovereign interests, and can promote the smooth development of my country’s foreign civil and commercial relations. "
The specific statements in the last two paragraphs of Wang Haihong's paper are: "We will wait and see the future development of the "Immunity Convention", but our country cannot wait for its outcome and should make some progress on the issue of jurisdictional immunity of the country and its property. In today's world, the trend of economic globalization continues to intensify and international business activities become more and more frequent. Countries will inevitably encounter the issue of immunity of the state and its property. Therefore, many countries have formulated special legislation on state immunity to provide better conditions for their diplomatic practice and judicial practice. Practice provides legal basis. However, our country lacks a special legislation on state immunity and lags far behind the needs of our country's foreign exchanges. This makes our country unable to rely on matters involving immunity of foreign countries and their property. Even if the Convention takes effect in most countries in the future, there will still be many issues left to be dealt with by the domestic laws of each country. Therefore, our country should avoid leaving legislative blind spots in this field, learn from international legislation and relevant foreign legislative experience, and combine it with the existing The draft convention will be formed and a special legislation on state immunity will be introduced as soon as possible. In short, the issue of state immunity is still in the process of continuous development. On this issue, China should resolve the relationship between principle and flexibility, that is, it must not only adhere to the international legal principle of state immunity, but also promote the universality of state immunity. The development of international conventions requires the adoption of flexible and diverse measures in actual international civil and commercial activities to coordinate conflicts of interest with other countries and their natural or legal persons on this issue, so as to protect our country in international civil and commercial exchanges. sovereign interests, and can promote the smooth development of my country’s foreign civil and commercial relations. "
The above two paragraphs are word for word except for the difference between "Convention" and ""Convention"".
A screenshot of the references of Lu Li's paper in Chinese works.
A screenshot of the references of Wang Haihong's paper in Chinese works.
Most of the references are the same.
In addition to the main text and conclusion, the references of the two papers are also highly consistent.
Specifically, the references of Zhang Luli's paper are divided into five parts, including Chinese works, translations, Chinese journal materials, and English works. and English journals.
Among them, there are 20 references to Chinese works of Zhang Luli’s paper, and a total of 24 references to Chinese works of Wang Haihong’s paper. Among them, the first 20 are completely consistent with Zhang Luli’s paper in terms of title, author, publisher, and edition. Consistent. In the
translation references, Zhang Luli’s paper and Wang Haihong’s paper both list 10 items, and these 10 items are completely consistent in terms of author, translator, publisher, and edition. In terms of
Chinese journals and materials, Zhang Luli’s paper is listed. There are 6 documents listed, while Wang Haihong’s paper lists 9 documents. However, the first 6 documents listed in Wang Haihong’s paper are completely consistent with the references listed in Zhang Luli’s paper in terms of author, publisher, and edition.
Look at the English references cited. For reference works, Zhang Luli's paper lists 48 items, and Wang Haihong's paper lists 49 items. The latter has 48 items except for item 49 "Hazel Fox., "The Law of State Immunity", Oxford University Press, 2002." The 48 references listed in Zhang Luli's paper are exactly the same.
Screenshot of the reference section of Zhang Luli's paper.
Screenshot of the reference section of Wang Haihong's paper. In addition, Zhang Luli also listed 21 references of Wang Haihong's paper. There are 30 citations in this part, 20 of which are completely consistent with Zhang Luli’s paper.
Both Zhang Luli’s paper and Wang Haihong’s paper are accompanied by a statement of originality, but Zhang Luli’s signature is not found in the originality statement of Zhang Luli’s paper.
Wang Haihong’s paper wrote in the statement of originality: “I solemnly declare that the paper submitted is my personal research work and research results obtained under the guidance of my supervisor. To the best of my knowledge, except for the special annotations and acknowledgments in the article, Except where mentioned, the paper does not contain research results that have been published or written by others, nor does it contain materials that have been used to obtain degrees or certificates from China University of Political Science and Law or other educational institutions. Any contribution has been clearly stated in the paper and expressed thanks. "
International School of Law: I don't know the situation yet, but I will understand that
according to the "China University of Political Science and Law Dissertation Academic Standards Review Methods", plagiarism of other people's works and There are four types of academic achievements:
One is copying the original text of other people's published or unpublished works, or splicing original words and sentences from different sources without indicating the source.
The second is to use other people’s ideas, opinions or language expressions without stating their source. The specific manifestations are: overall plagiarism, that is, plagiarism in the overall argumentation, conception, framework, etc.; repeating other people's writing, changing the wording to use other people's arguments and arguments, presenting other people's ideas, etc.
The third is quoted but not noted. The fourth is to fabricate or tamper with research results, survey data or literature.
The measure also stipulates that if a degree has been awarded and the fraud in the dissertation is verified to be true, the degree will be revoked and the degree certificate will be cancelled. If the degree application qualification is canceled or the degree is revoked, the degree application will no longer be accepted for at least 3 years from the date of the decision. If the applicant is an employee, his/her unit shall be notified.
For instructors whose dissertations are found to have been plagiarized or plagiarized in serious cases or who have been repeatedly found to have plagiarism or plagiarism, the school will comply with the relevant requirements for teacher ethics and style in the relevant teacher standards within a certain range. Announce relevant information and hold them accountable accordingly.
For secondary training units that have repeatedly committed fraudulent dissertations or theses and have had a bad impact, the school will notify them of criticism and reduce their enrollment plans. If the circumstances are serious, the person in charge will be given corresponding sanctions.
(Source: The Paper)
