根据外商投资企业法律制度的规定,下列关于合营企业的表述中,错误的是______。
A. 合营各方可在章程中约定不按出资比例分配利润
B. 合营企业应设立董事会并作为企业的最高权力机构
C. 合营企业章程中不得约定由总经理担任公司的法定代表人
D. 合营企业的组织形式为有限责任公司
根据外商投资企业法律制度的规定,下列关于特殊目的公司的表述中,不正确的是______。
A. 特殊目的公司境外上市的股票发行价总值,不得低于其所对应的经中同有关资产评估机构评估的被并购境内公司股权的价值
B. 特殊目的公司以股权并购境内公司的,境内公司应向商务部申报
C. 境内公司及自然人从特殊目的公司获得的利润、红利及资本变动所得外汇收入,应自获得之日起6个月内调回境内
D. 自营业执照颁发之日起6个月内,如果境内公司不能取得无加注的批准证书,则加注的批准证书自动失效,并应办理变更登记手续
根据反垄断法律制度的规定,下列表述中,正确的是______。
A. 不服反垄断执法机构作出的有关经营者集中反垄断审查决定的,可以直接提起行政诉讼
B. 商务部负责经营者滥用市场支配地位的反垄断审查工作
C. 反垄断执法机构可依职权对涉嫌垄断的行为主动立案调查
D. 反垄断执法机构依职权对涉嫌垄断行为主动立案调查的,不得中止调查
Do animals have rights This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground clearing way to start. (46)Actually, it isn"t, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human rights, which is something the world does not have.On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. (47)Some philosophers argue that fights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements.Therefore, animals cannot have rights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd, for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account, and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people for instance to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it, how do you reply to somebody who says "I don"t like this contract" The point is that: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. (48)It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all.This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at all Many deny it. (49)Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice.Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans. This view, which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely "logical". In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is right to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning—-the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl—is to weigh others" interests against one"s own. This in mm requires sympathy and imagination: without them there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. (50)When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind"s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.