The doctoral dissertations of the two same disciplines of the University of France are suspected to be of the same height only one year apart.

category:Society click:365
 The doctoral dissertations of the two same disciplines of the University of France are suspected to be of the same height only one year apart.


Recently, Peng Mei News received reports that the dissertations of two doctoral students from China University of Political Science and Law are highly similar, but the completion time is only one year apart. In addition, the authors of the two papers are the same tutors and graduates of the same major, with only one difference.

Peng Mei News downloaded these two doctoral dissertations from China HowNet. They are respectively the Special Thesis on State Immunity by Zhang Luyi, 2005 Ph.D. graduate of International Law Major of China University of Political Science and Law (hereinafter referred to as Zhang Luyis Thesis) and Research on State Immunity by Wang Haihong, 2006 Ph.D. graduate of International Law Major of China University of Political Science and Law (hereinafter referred to as Wang Haihongs Thesis). )

The completion time of Zhang Luchengs thesis is March 2005, and that of Wang Haihongs thesis is March 2006. Wang Haihongs thesis is one year later than Zhang Luchengs.

Comparing the bibliographies of the two papers, Pengchao journalists found that Wang Haihongs papers are divided into five chapters, of which the titles of the first chapter, the second section, the third section, the third chapter and the fourth chapter can be found in Zhang Luchengs papers catalogue.

In addition, the key words of Zhangs thesis are State exemption restriction exemption and exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from exemption from the main body of state exemption. The key words of Wangs thesis are the first four keywords of Zhangs thesis

What is more noteworthy is that the texts and bibliographies of the two papers are largely identical.

On the morning of December 20, Peng Mei-wen called the International Law College of China University of Political Science and Law on the similarity of the two doctoral dissertations mentioned above. A teacher in the graduate work office of the Institute told Peng Mei News that the Institute had not grasped the relevant information before and would do further understanding and verification.

In addition, we are a secondary school, and at that time (two papers completed time), our college should not be established, on this matter or specifically to the schools graduate school reflection. The woman teacher said.

The College of International Law of China University of Political Science and Law has a long history, which can be traced back to the establishment of the Department of International Economic Law on March 12, 1989. In 2002, in order to meet the needs of law education and economic construction in China, China University of Political Science and Law decided to establish an International Law College on the basis of the former Department of International Economic Law.

Subsequently, Peng Mei News repeatedly dialed the offices of Graduate School Degree Office and Comprehensive Section of China University of Political Science and Law, but no one answered them for the time being.

On December 20, Pengmei News contacted Zhou Zhonghai, a professor of China University of Political Science and Law and a supervisor of doctoral dissertation of Zhang Lucheng and Wang Haihong. Zhou Zhonghai entrusted his wife to inform Peng Mei News that he has retired for many years. As far as he knows, this situation does not exist without such a thing.

Several paragraphs in the text are almost identical.

Both papers focus on State immunity and have similar topics. Zhang Luchengs paper is titled A monograph on state immunity, while Wang Haihongs is titled Research on State immunity.

Comparisons show that there are many similarities in the text content of the two papers, and many paragraphs are almost wordless.

Taking the first chapter as an example, the first chapter of Zhang Luchengs thesis deals with the basic theory of state immunity. One of the sections is about the significance and complexity of state immunity. Zhang Lu-chengs 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 customary international law, treaty law or domestic law. In fact, the issue of international law should not be treated by simple categorization, but by a comprehensive study of different types of legal origins. The complexity of the issue of State immunity is mainly manifested in the following aspects: on the one hand, the different legal sources of State immunity show different trends; the international customary law on this issue has not been formed; there is no international treaty on State immunity universally accepted by all countries in the world; and it is impossible to derive universally applicable rules of international law on State immunity from State practice. On the other hand, in the same legal source, there are also different trends: whether customary international law develops along the road of state immunity as a precondition and restricting immunity as an exception or vice versa remains an open question; if relevant international treaties cannot be agreed upon, the European Convention on the Immunity of States, the United Nations International Law Commission and the International Law Commission, which have entered into force, and The draft treaty drafted by a well-known academic group also shows a trend of conflict and imbalance, and the positions and practices of various countries also show signs of conflict and imbalance. Therefore, the theory and practice of state immunity are experiencing unprecedented turbulence and challenges.

The second section of the first chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis also discusses the meaning and complexity of state immunity. Among them, Wang Haihong wrote when he specifically discussed the complexity of state immunity: From the perspective of international law, it is difficult to simply attribute the issue of state immunity to customary international law, treaty law or domestic law. In fact, the issue of international law should not be treated by simple categorization, but should conduct a comprehensive study of different types of legal origins. The complexity of the issue of State immunity is mainly manifested in the following aspects: on the one hand, the different legal sources of State immunity show different trends: the international customary law on this issue has not been formed; there is no universally accepted international treaty on State immunity for all countries in the world; and it is impossible to draw universally applicable rules of international law on State immunity from State practice. On the other hand, in the same legal source, there are also different trends: whether customary international law develops along the road of state immunity as a precondition and restricting immunity as an exception or vice versa remains an open question; if relevant international treaties cannot be agreed upon, the European Convention on the Immunity of States, the United Nations International Law Commission and the International Law Commission, which have entered into force, and The draft treaty drafted by a well-known academic group also shows a trend of conflict and imbalance, and the positions and practices of various countries also show signs of conflict and imbalance. Therefore, the theory and practice of state immunity are experiencing unprecedented turbulence and challenges.

The comparison shows that the above two paragraphs, including punctuation symbols, are identical.

Chapter I of Zhang Luchengs thesis, Complexity of State Immunity concludes with a screenshot.

A screenshot of the first chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis, Complexity of State Immunity.

In addition, Zhang Luchengs paper concludes the section The Complexity of State Immunity: Therefore, in the light of the elements of the establishment of customary international law, namely, practice and legal conviction, two conclusions can be drawn: first, absolute immunity has not become customary international law; second, there is no such customary law in international law, that is, domestic courts in any case are concerned with it. Litigation in a foreign country is totally incapable of exercising jurisdiction. Sovereign acts of foreign countries are still protected by immunity, but non-sovereign acts of foreign countries can not get rid of the jurisdiction of the courts of the host country. Thirdly, although absolute immunity is unanimously denied in practice and legal conviction of all countries at present, it has not become a rule of customary international law because of the serious divergence in the specific implementation of restrictive immunity (the core issue is how to distinguish between sovereign and non-sovereign acts). In a word, the traditional customary law rules of state immunity and the rules of state immunity which are developing and turbulent today have undergone qualitative changes in many aspects, which makes the main legal sources of state immunity blurred and more complex.

At the end of the second section of the first chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis, the following two conclusions can be drawn: firstly, absolute immunity has not become customary international law; secondly, there is no such customary law in international law, that is, domestic courts in any case involve a foreign country. The judicial jurisdiction cannot be exercised at all in the proceedings of the state. Sovereign acts of foreign countries are still protected by immunity, but non-sovereign acts of foreign countries can not get rid of the jurisdiction of the courts of the host country. Thirdly, although absolute immunity is unanimously denied in practice and legal conviction of all countries at present, it has not become a rule of customary international law because of the serious divergence in the specific implementation of restrictive immunity (the core issue is how to distinguish between sovereign and non-sovereign acts). In a word, the traditional customary law rules of state immunity and the rules of state immunity which are developing and turbulent today have undergone qualitative changes in many aspects, which makes the main legal sources of state immunity blurred and more complex.

The above two paragraphs, including the explanation and annotation in parentheses, are wordless.

Look at the comparison of the second chapter of the two papers.

A screenshot of the second chapter of Zhang Luchengs thesis, Important State Practice.

A screenshot of Wang Haihongs second chapter, Important State Practice.

The title of Chapter II of Zhang Luchengs thesis is The Historical Origin, Development and Present Situation of State Immunity. In the section of Important State Practice, Zhang Luchengs papers take Belgium, Italy, Egypt, the United Kingdom, the United States and France as examples to introduce the practice of these countries.

Taking the practice of Egypt as an example, Zhang Lu-cheng wrote: Egypt also played an important role in the formation of the principle of restrictive immunity. Interestingly, Egyptian foreign litigation cases are tried not only by Egyptian judges, but also by a large number of judges selected from foreign nationals. Therefore, the judgment of the Egyptian Mixed Court not only represents Egypts views on the issue of national immunity, but also reflects the views of a large number of judges from other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and France. It is noteworthy that, in the same period, the courts of these countries clearly stood in support of absolute immunity. Despite its international composition, the Mixed Court is essentially a domestic judicial body. However, at different stages, different judgesviews on different cases can summarize their consistent views on the basic principles of national law.

Zhang Luchengs paper also cited a specific case to illustrate: In 1930, a mixed court composed of the French as the chief judge, an American judge, a British judge and two Egyptian judges heard the case of Turkish Tobacco Monopoly Company and so on v. Turkish Tobacco Joint Monopoly Authority. The Turkish government, as the taker of Turkish Tobacco Monopoly Company, jointly heard the case. The defendant, in the lawsuit, argued that the company was a Turkish government agency and should enjoy immunity. Following its previous judgment, the court held that the operation of a tobacco monopoly company had nothing to do with sovereignty and that the outcome of the case led to jurisdiction over the Turkish Government. It is noteworthy that the three foreign judges constituting the tribunal were in countries that were supporters of absolute immunity at that time.

In the second chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis, several examples are given in the section of Important State Practice. Among them, when introducing the state immunity of Egypt, he wrote: Egypt also played an important role in the formation of the principle of restrictive immunity. Interestingly, Egyptian foreign litigation cases are tried not only by Egyptian judges, but also by a large number of judges selected from foreign nationals. Therefore, the judgment of the Egyptian Mixed Court not only represents Egypts views on the issue of national immunity, but also reflects the views of a large number of judges from other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and France. It is noteworthy that, in the same period, the courts of these countries clearly stood in support of absolute immunity. Despite its international composition, the Mixed Court is essentially a domestic judicial body. However, at different stages, different judgesviews on different cases can summarize their consistent views on the basic principles of national law.

Then Wang Haihong wrote: In 1930, a mixed court consisting 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 Monopoly Authority. The Turkish government, as the takeover of Turkish Tobacco Monopoly Company, was the co-defendant in the lawsuit. It is proposed that the company is a Turkish government agency and should enjoy immunity. Following its previous judgment, the court held that the operation of a tobacco monopoly company had nothing to do with sovereignty and that the outcome of the case led to jurisdiction over the Turkish Government. It is noteworthy that the three foreign judges constituting the tribunal were in countries that were supporters of absolute immunity at that time.

A screenshot of Zhang Luchengs third chapter, Various organs of the state and its government.

The third chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis is a screenshot of the contents of the section Various organs of the state and its government.

The third chapter of Zhang Luchengs thesis deals with the subject of state immunity. Among them, Zhang Lu-chengs thesis in section II of this chapter, Various organs of the state and its government states as follows: The International Law Commission of the United Nations lists the various organs of the state and its government as the principal subject of immunity for the following two reasons: on the one hand, the organizational structure of the state is an integral part of the state as a whole; on the other hand, the International Law Commission of the United Nations lists the various organs of the On the one hand, the organizational structure of the state has formed a single entity with immunity after satisfying the following two conditions: (1) acting for the state and representing the name of the state; (2) exercising sovereign power and government functions. The various organs of the state and its government include the state itself acting in its own name or through various organs of the government, the sovereign or head of state of a sovereign state, the central government, government departments and heads of government, organs or subordinate organs of government departments, offices or bureaus, and missions representing the state, including diplomatic missions, consuls, permanent delegations and envoys, etc.

Wang Haihongs paper in the third chapter, entitled Various organs of the state and its government, writes: The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of the State and its Property lists the various organs of the state and its government as the principal subjects of immunity, which affirms the long-term practice of various countries and is based on the following two reasons. On the one hand, the organizational structure of the state is an integral part of the state as a whole; on the other hand, the organizational structure of the state has formed a single entity with immunity after satisfying the following two conditions: (1) acting for the state and representing the name of the state; (2) exercising sovereign power and government functions. The various organs of the state and its government include the state itself acting in its own name or through various organs of the government, the sovereign or head of state of a sovereign state, the central government, government departments and heads of government, organs or subordinate organs of government departments, offices or bureaus, and missions representing the state, including diplomatic missions, consuls, permanent delegations and envoys, etc.

The above two paragraphs are totally identical except that the beginning of the UN International Law Commission is different from the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, and later Wang Haihongs paper added a sentence It is a confirmation of the long-term practice of States.

A screenshot of Zhang Luchengs thesis in the section of Legal Status of State Enterprises in Chapter III.

The third chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis is a screenshot of the content of the section Legal Status of State Enterprises.

For example, the title of section 3 of Chapter III of Zhang Luchengs thesis is the legal status of state enterprises. When discussing the relationship between state enterprises and the subject of state exemption, Zhang Lu-cheng wrote: The state often engages in transactions with foreign countries through state enterprises, sometimes based entirely on commercial considerations, sometimes using state enterprises as an indispensable tool in economic development policies. Whether state enterprises can claim state immunity has been controversial in theory and in this regard. There are two main opinions on whether state enterprises can enjoy state immunity. According to the traditional absolute immunity theory, as long as the state enterprise has the status of the state, it certainly has the qualification to claim and enjoy the state immunity. However, the theory of restrictive immunity holds that whether a state enterprise can enjoy immunity is mainly based on whether it engages in sovereign acts. Usually, those who take the legal status of state enterprises, company organization, litigation ability and the degree of government control as the factors to judge whether to grant exemption are called structuralism, while those who take the nature of acts performed by state enterprises as the criterion to judge whether to grant exemption are called functionalism.

The third chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis also discusses the legal status of state enterprises. One paragraph reads: The country often engages in transactions with foreign countries through state enterprises, sometimes based solely on commercial considerations, sometimes as an indispensable tool in economic development policies. Whether state enterprises can claim state immunity has been controversial in theory. There are two main opinions on whether state enterprises can enjoy state immunity. According to the traditional absolute immunity theory, as long as the state enterprise has the status of the state, it certainly has the qualification to claim and enjoy the state immunity. However, the theory of restrictive immunity holds that whether a state enterprise can enjoy immunity is mainly based on whether it engages in sovereign acts. Usually, those who take the legal status of state enterprises, company organization, litigation ability and the degree of government control as the factors to judge whether to grant exemption are called structuralism, while those who take the nature of acts performed by state enterprises as the criterion to judge whether to grant exemption are called functionalism.

There is only one word difference between the above two paragraphs. Zhang Lu-chengs thesis is about theory and Wang Haihongs thesis is about theory.

The fifth chapter of Zhang Luchengs thesis and the fourth chapter of Wang Haihongs thesis both discuss exceptions to state immunity, which have many similarities.

A screenshot of Zhang Luchengs thesis in the first section of Chapter 5, Introduction.

A screenshot of Wang Haihongs paper in the first section of Chapter IV, Introduction.

For example, Zhang Luchengs first section of Chapter V of his thesis, Introduction writes: In the practice of treaties, whether multilateral or bilateral treaties, there are often clauses that states may not claim jurisdictional immunity in commercial transactions. Typical examples are a series of treaties on friendship between trade and navigation signed by the United States, the former Soviet Union and other countries, and the 1972 Convention on the Immunities of European States. The International Law Commission of the United Nations will take commercial transactions as the main normative object without exception. The practice of various countries also attaches great importance to this issue. In terms of domestic legislation, the national immunity legislation of the United States, Britain, Singapore, Pakistan, South Africa, Canada and Australia has listed foreign commercial acts as the main object of restrictive immunity. In the judicial practice of various countries, there are also a large number of judgments denying that the state enjoys jurisdictional immunity from commercial transactions. For example, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Egypt and Pakistan have all ruled that the courts deny jurisdictional immunity to States engaged in commercial transactions. The above development is enough to show that the state can not claim jurisdictional immunity in lawsuits arising from foreign legal persons or natural persons engaged in commercial transactions, which has become a general trend.

The first section of chapter IV of Wang Haihongs thesis, Introduction also contains a paragraph: In the practice of treaties, whether multilateral or bilateral treaties, there are often clauses that states may not claim jurisdictional immunity in commercial transactions. Typical examples are a series of treaties on friendship between trade and navigation signed by the United States, the former Soviet Union and other countries, and the 1972 Convention on the Immunities of European States. The International Law Commission of the United Nations will take commercial transactions as the main normative object without exception. The practice of various countries also attaches great importance to this issue. In terms of domestic legislation, the national immunity legislation of the United States, Britain, Singapore, Pakistan, South Africa, Canada and Australia has listed foreign commercial acts as the main object of restrictive immunity. In the judicial practice of various countries, there are also a large number of judgments denying that the state enjoys jurisdictional immunity from commercial transactions. For example, Belgium, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Egypt and Pakistan have all ruled that the courts deny jurisdictional immunity to States engaged in commercial transactions. The above development is enough to show that the state can not claim jurisdictional immunity in lawsuits arising from foreign legal persons or natural persons engaged in commercial transactions, which has become a general trend.

The above two paragraphs are identical in content.

Section 5, Section 4 of Zhang Luchengs thesis Exceptions to State Immunity: Employment Contract is a screenshot of the contents.

Section IV of Chapter IV of Wang Haihongs thesis, Exceptions to State Exemptions: Employment Contracts is a screenshot of the contents.

In addition, Zhang Lu-chengs paper concludes chapter V, section IV, Exceptions to State Immunity: Employment Contracts. The biggest difference between countries on the relationship between employment contracts and State immunity lies in whether and to what extent government employees have the right to sue the employer in France, where the court is located. The current state of state practice and legislation shows that, although there are no principles of international law governing the status of employees in foreign countries, relevant jurisprudence often only regards employment contracts as special types of commercial (private) contracts. In addition, courts generally grant immunity to foreign countries for contracts of employment involving diplomatic and consular personnel exercising their sovereign rights. In fact, all countries strongly demand the power of officials to regulate their services abroad. At present, the state does not seem to be inclined to agree to expand the restrictive conditions for the application of state immunity exception to employment contracts, that is, the exception of state immunity should not be applied to employment contracts that directly perform the functions of government power.

At the end of section IV of chapter IV of Wang Haihongs thesis, Exceptions to State Immunity: Employment Contracts, the author writes: In summary, the biggest difference between countries on the relationship between employment contracts and State Immunity lies in whether and to what extent government employees have the right to sue the employing country in France, where the court is located. The current state of state practice and legislation shows that, although there are no principles of international law governing the status of employees in foreign countries, relevant jurisprudence often only regards employment contracts as special types of commercial (private) contracts. In addition, courts generally grant immunity to foreign countries for contracts of employment involving diplomatic and consular personnel exercising their sovereign rights. In fact, all countries strongly demand the power of officials to regulate their services abroad. At present, the state does not seem to be inclined to agree to expand the restrictive conditions for the application of state exemption exception to employment contracts, that is, the exemption of state exemption should not be applied to employment contracts that directly perform the functions of government power.

Comparing the above two paragraphs, we find that Wang Haihongs thesis is identical except for many generalizations and the differences between employment and employment.

ConclusionSome of the paragraphs are consistent.

In addition, the two papers in the end of the conclusion there are also a number of paragraphs consistent.

The last two screenshots of Zhang Luchengs conclusion.

The last two screenshots of Wang Haihongs conclusion.

Zhang Lucheng wrote in the last two paragraphs of his paper: We will wait and see the future development of the Convention, but our country can not wait for its success. We should do something about the jurisdictional immunity of the state and its property. In todays world, with the increasing trend of economic globalization and the increasing frequency of international trade activities, countries will inevitably encounter the problem of immunity of the state and its property. Therefore, many countries have formulated specific legislation on national immunity successively to provide legal basis for their diplomatic practice and judicial practice. However, China lacks a special cubic method of state immunity, which falls far behind the needs of Chinas foreign exchanges, making it impossible for China to rely on when dealing with the immunity of foreign countries and their property. Even if the Convention will be effective for most countries in the future, there will still be many problems to be dealt with by the domestic laws of all countries. Therefore, China should avoid leaving legislative blind spots in this field, draw lessons from international legislation and foreign relevant legislative experience, and combine the draft convention already formed, introduce a special legislation on national immunity as soon as possible. In a word, the issue of state immunity is still in the process of continuous development. On this issue, China should solve the relationship between principle and flexibility, that is, to adhere to the principle of state immunity as an international law principle, to promote the establishment of universal international conventions on state immunity, and to adopt flexible and diverse measures to coordinate this issue in practical international civil and commercial activities. The conflicts of interests between other countries and their natural or legal persons can not only protect our sovereign interests in international civil and commercial exchanges, but also promote the smooth development of our foreign civil and commercial relations.

The last two paragraphs of Wang Haihongs thesis are as follows: We will wait and see the future development of the Convention on Immunity, but we cant wait for it to come true. We should do something about the jurisdictional immunity of the state and its property. In todays world, with the increasing trend of economic globalization and the increasing frequency of international trade activities, countries will inevitably encounter the problem of immunity of the state and its property. Therefore, many countries have formulated specific legislation on national immunity successively to provide legal basis for their diplomatic practice and judicial practice. However, our country lacks a special legislation on state immunity, which falls far behind the needs of our foreign exchanges, which makes it impossible for us to rely on when dealing with the immunity of foreign countries and their property. Even if the Convention will be effective in most countries in the future, there will still be many problems to be dealt with by the domestic laws of all countries. Therefore, China should avoid leaving legislative blind spots in this field, draw lessons from international legislation and foreign relevant legislative experience, and combine the draft convention that has been formed, and introduce a special legislation on national immunity as soon as possible. In a word, the issue of state immunity is still in the process of continuous development. On this issue, China should solve the relationship between principle and flexibility, that is, to adhere to the principle of state immunity as an international law principle, to promote the development of universal international conventions on state immunity, and to adopt flexible and diverse measures to coordinate this issue in practical international civil and commercial activities. The conflicts of interests between other countries and their natural or legal persons can not only protect our sovereign interests in international civil and commercial exchanges, but also promote the smooth development of our foreign civil and commercial relations.

Apart from the difference between the Convention and the Convention on Immunities, the two paragraphs above are not bad.

Most of the references are the same.

In addition to the body and conclusion, there is also a high degree of consistency in the references of the two papers.

Specifically, the reference literature of Zhang Luchengs thesis is divided into five parts, including Chinese works, translated works, Chinese periodical materials, English works and English periodicals.

Among them, there are 20 Chinese bibliographic references in Zhang Luchengs papers and 24 in Wang Haihongs papers. The first 20 of them are identical with Zhang Luchengs papers in title, author, publishing house and edition.

Among the references of translated works, Zhang Luchengs and Wang Haihongs papers are listed in 10 articles, which are identical in author, translator, publishing house and edition.

In terms of Chinese periodicals and materials, Zhang Lu-chengs paper lists six articles, Wang Haihongs paper lists nine articles, but the first six articles listed in Wang Haihongs paper are identical with those listed in Zhang Lu-chengs paper in terms of authors, publishing houses and editions.

Looking at the references cited in English books, 48 articles are listed in Zhang Luchengs thesis and 49 articles are listed in Wang Haihongs thesis. In addition to Article 49, Hazel Fox, The Lawof State Immunity, Oxford University Press, 2002. the other 48 articles are exactly the same as those listed in Zhangs paper.

Some screenshots of references of Zhang Luchengs essays in English.

Some screenshots of references of Wang Haihongs essays in English.

In addition, Zhang also listed 21 references for English periodicals. Wang Haihongs paper quotes 30 articles in this part, and 20 of them are identical with Zhang Luchengs.

Both Zhang Luchengs and Wang Haihongs papers are accompanied by statements of originality, but Zhang Luchengs papers have no signature.

In his original statement, Wang Haihong wrote: I solemnly declare that the papers submitted are the research work and achievements of my own under the guidance of my tutor. As far as I know, apart from the special annotations and thanks, the papers do not contain the research results published or written by others, nor the materials used to obtain degrees or certificates from China University of Political Science and Law or other educational institutions. Any contribution made by the comrades who work with me to this institute has been clearly explained and thanked in the paper.

Academy of International Law: If you dont know the situation, you will understand it.

On the morning of December 20, Peng Mei-wen called the International Law College of China University of Political Science and Law on the similarity of the two doctoral dissertations mentioned above. A teacher in the graduate work office of the Institute told Peng Mei News that the Institute had not grasped the relevant information before and would do further understanding and verification. In addition, we are a secondary school, which should be reflected specifically to the graduate school. The woman teacher said.

Subsequently, Peng Mei News repeatedly dialed the offices of Graduate School Degree Office, Professional Degree Office and Comprehensive Department of China University of Political Science and Law, but no one answered.

On December 20, Peng Mei News contacted Zhou Zhonghai, a professor of China University of Political Science and Law and the instructor of doctoral dissertation of Zhang Luyi and Wang Haihong. Zhou Zhonghai entrusted his wife to inform Peng Mei News that he has retired for many years. As far as he knows, this situation does not exist without such a thing.

According to the Regulations for the Examination of Academic Standards for Dissertations of China University of Political Science and Law, there are four cases of plagiarism of other peoples works and academic achievements:

One is to copy the original works published or unpublished by others, or to stitch the original words and sentences from different sources without specifying the source.

The second is to use other peoples ideas or language to express without stating its source. Specific manifestations are as follows: overall plagiarism, that is, plagiarism in the overall position, conception, framework, etc; retelling other peoples writings, changing the wording, using other peoples arguments and arguments, presenting other peoples ideas, etc.

Third, it is cited but not specified. Fourth, fabricate or tamper with research results, survey data or literature.

At the same time, the Measures stipulate that if a degree has been awarded, the fraudulent act of dissertation shall be verified, the degree shall be revoked and the degree certificate shall be cancelled. The decision to cancel the qualification or revoke the degree application shall not be accepted for at least three years from the date of making the decision. If the applicant is an on-the-job employee, the applicant shall notify the unit to which he belongs.

Teachers who have been found to have plagiarized or plagiarized their dissertations or who have been found to have plagiarized or plagiarized many times will be publicized and held accountable in accordance with the relevant requirements for teachersmorality and style in accordance with the relevant teachers norms.

For secondary training units which have repeatedly falsified their dissertations or dissertations and have bad effects, the schools shall give notice and criticism, and check and reduce their enrollment plans. If the circumstances are serious, the responsible persons shall be given corresponding sanctions.

Three European and American scholars engage in academic pranks: Mad fake papers for experiments

Some people fake papers for graduation and teaching, others for evaluation of titles and awards. After squeezing out the final value of fake papers, most of them will choose to withdraw their papers quietly and not mention it on any occasion. Some people choose to be open to the public. Recently, three scholars from Europe and the United States, Helen Prakros, James A. Lindsay and Peter Bogosian, published 20 fake papers on social platforms and interviewed various media.