劳动力市场管理规定

第一章 总则 第一条 为保护劳动者和用人单位的合法权益,发展和规范劳动力市场,促进就业,根据劳动法和有关法律法规,制定本规定。 第二条 劳动者求职与就业、用人单位招用人员、各类职业介绍机构从事职业介绍活动,适用本规定。 第三条 各级劳动保障行政部门应当积极组织开展公共就业服务,促进发展多种类型职业介绍机构,为劳动者就业和用人单位招用人员服务。 任何组织和个人对违反本规定的行为有权检举和控告。 第四条 县级以上地方劳动保障行政部门主管本行政区域内的劳动力市场管理工作。     

上海市职业介绍管理暂行规定

第一条 为了培育和发展劳动力市场,规范职业介绍行为,合理配置劳动力资源,维护社会稳定,根据法律、法规的有关规定,结合本市实际情况,制定本规定。 第二条 本规定适用于本市范围内与职业介绍活动有关的单位和人员。 第三条 政府发展职业介绍事业的原则是:鼓励、扶持为求职人员提供无偿服务的职业介绍机构,适度发展非营利性的收费职业介绍机构,有限制地开办营利性的收费职业介绍机构。     

迈向合作规制：英国法律服务规制体制改革及其启示

英国传统上以法律职业团体自我规制为主导的法律服务规制体制,对于英国法律服务业的发展发挥了重要作用,但近年来被指责为"过时、僵化、过于复杂、欠缺问责并且不够透明"。2007年《法律服务法》对传统体制做了大幅改革,包括设立了一个作为独立规制机构的法律服务理事会,使得公共规制和职业团体自我规制之间的权力配置更为合理;设立了独立的法律申诉局,致力于为法律服务市场中的消费者提供一个有效的权利救济途径;引入了替代性事务结构,允许非法律人投资者和管理人进行法律服务市场,以增强法律服务市场的竞争。这一改革对于中国法律服务规制体制的改革具有参考价值。     

浅谈行政中介的治理对策

地方行政执法类中介机构(以下简称行政中介),是指介于行政主体与行政相对人之间,在行政主体履行行政执法职能过程中,专门为主管部门及其相对人提供配套中介服务,并直接或间接隶属于政府部门的各类法人实体。应当肯定行政中介在政府履行公共管理职能方面发挥了重要的历史作用,但     

律师协会的权力及其性质探讨

现代行政法的重要特点是,行政职能的社会化、行政方式的多样化和行政主体的多元化。在行政主体上,世界各国均有从国家行政到公共行政转变的趋势。律师协会作为一种职业团体,在行政法律关系中有着双重身份。一方面,它与一般公民、法人或其他组织一样处于行政相对人的地位,必须接受政府的管理和监督;另一方面,它又与政府机构一样处于行政主体地位,行使部分公共管理权力,对律师和律师执业机构进行行业管理。正如管欧在谈到公共团体的法律地位时所指出的,“其在行政法上,恒有双重之地位,一方面服从国家统治权之支配,处于行政客体之地位,此与一般人民之地位相同;一方面则在法令赋予之职权范围内,处于行政主体之地位,对于构成团体之分子,即其所属之人民,以行使其公权。”     

中介组织贿赂犯罪若干问题研究

社会中介组织逐渐发展成为市场经济重要主体之一,与权力、利益相生相伴的贿赂犯罪也从传统的国家机构蔓延至中介组织。中介贿赂犯罪涉及行贿、受贿、介绍贿赂等罪名,本文从刑事司法角度,重点探讨中介贿赂犯罪中行贿谋取不正当利益的认定、行贿与馈赠的区分、中介人员和国家工作人员共同受贿的认定及行贿、受贿帮助犯与介绍贿赂的区分等争议问题。     

从WTO争端解决机构的报告看条约解释问题

在中国诉美国反倾销和反补贴措施争端解决案中,最重要的一个问题就是《补贴与反补贴措施协定》中的＂公共机构＂的认定问题,WTO争端解决机构的专家组和上诉机构对该问题作出了截然不同的裁决。本文结合专家组和上诉机构的报告,以及《维也纳条约法公约》中对于条约解释的规定,就该案中对于＂公共机构＂的认定作出了系统的分析,提出了专家组在法律解释中出现的一些错误,并分析了专家组和上诉机构对于同一问题不同理解的原因。     

就业服务与就业管理规定

[文(令)号]第28号令[公布日期]2007.11.5[类别]社会法.劳动[施行日期]2008.1.1[同时废止法规]1994年《职业指导办法》和2000年《劳动力市场管理规定》规定》第一章总则第一条为了加强就业服务和就业管理,培育和完善统一开放、竞争有序的人力资源市场,为劳动者就业和用人单位招用人员提供服务,根据就业促进法等法律、行政法规,制定本规定。第二条劳动者求职与就业,用人单位招用人员,劳动保障行政部门举办的公共就业服务机构和经劳动保障行政部门审批的职业中介机构从事就业服务活动,适用本规定。本规定所称用人单位,是指在中华人民共和国境内…     

开放法律服务市场的政策

首先是对法律服务市场对外开放的趋势判断。 　　我认为,中国法律服务市场对外开放的一个必然趋势就是境外机构“本土化”。通过行为主体的本土化实现业务的本土化。原因在于： (1)法律服务对本土背景有很高的要求,境外机构不走本土化的路子,就不可能在中国市场取得实质性进展。 (2)国内具有境外学习和培训经历并愿意从事法律中介职业的人员越来越多,这部分人员在行为方式上更适合于境外机构,由此为境外机构本土化提供了充足的人力资源。 (3)“本土化”有助于降低境外机构的人力成本。 　　境外机构本土化的方式主要有： (1)大量吸收国…     

论高职高专教育中的实践教学

高职高专教育为社会主义现代化建设事业培养了大批急需的各类专门人才,对于促进社会进步和经济发展起到了重要作用。而实践教学是高职高专教育的重要组成部分,是培养学生操作技能与动手能力的主要手段.最近劳动力市场供求状况显示,高级技术工人供不应求。可见加强实践教学,提高受教育者的职业能力,事关培养生产和服务一线高素质劳动者和实用人才的大局.     

Private Regulation of Food Safety by Supermarkets

Food safety is a highly debated issue. Food industry organizations, retailers and national and transnational governments have been trying to find new ways to regulate food safety. Can private regulation of food safety meet the high expectations? A review of existing literature shows some conditions to be important for effectively protecting public interests by private regulation. In particular, retailers worldwide are actively engaged in setting food safety standards for their suppliers. A case study of food safety regulation by Dutch retailers shows that they can force food industry organizations and producers to accept food safety standards because of their economic (market) power.     

Private roles in food safety provision: the law and economics of private food safety

Private food safety standards play a crucial role in ensuring the safety of the foods we consume. A voluntary instrument, private standards are so widespread to have become de facto mandatory for suppliers who wish to access the most profitable markets. Developed by retailers and business coalitions and enforced through third-party certification, private food safety standards constitute one of the principal food safety governance instruments of agribusiness value chains. Albeit private and voluntary, such standards have profound public implications because they contribute to food safety and protect consumers’ health. This article uses law and economics theory to identify their strengths and vulnerabilities and understand the relationship between public and private regulation. Specifically, it examines whether private standards can fulfill the public interest objective of protecting consumers’ health and whether they compete with or rather complement public regulation. The article argues that private standards have emerged in response to food scares to coordinate complex food value chains and have become ever more relevant in the context of intense market globalization, an area in which public regulation often failed. Among the advantages of private standards, are their flexibility and ability to rapidly respond to new risks. Through their focus on management-based regulation and strong market incentives for producers, private standards promote compliance better than traditional inspection methods. Private standards also present several gray areas including increased risk of capture due to their limited transparency and gaps in enforcement by third-party certifiers. The article suggests areas that deserve additional scrutiny, especially the opacity of standards vis-à-vis consumers and the public sector and the quality and reliability of third party certification.     

论市场主体的基本经济权利及其行政法安排

在市场经济条件下 ,市场交换的本质是产权的自由让渡 ,因此 ,财产权和经济自由权是个人和组织作为市场主体参与市场活动必须具备的基本权利 ,这些基本权利不仅需要私法的规定和保护 ,更需要行政法的确认和安排 ,以使个人和组织作为市场主体在与作为行政主体的行政机关打交道时能够得到制度上的保障。另一方面 ,在现代社会 ,财产权和经济自由权又不是绝对的权利 ,为了社会的公共利益它们又常常受到法律上的限制 ,因此 ,如何在“个人的权利和自由与政府的权力这两个逆向的观念之间创制一种可行的平衡”也是行政法上必需解决的一个课题     

论劳动合同的私法性质及其法律适用

传统观点视劳动合同为公法性质的合同,在社会主义市场经济进一步发展和我国劳动制度进一步深化改革的今天,此观点有不合理之处。本文试图从批判“劳动合同公法论”入手,界定劳动合同的私法属性并解决其法律适用问题,以期能够完善我国的劳动合同制度,并将其与劳动法其它相关制度的改革和司法实践更好的衔接起来,真正解决实际问题,顺应社会主义市场经济的要求。     

试论市场规制法与行政法的关系

市场规制法是实体法和具体行政程序法的结合 ,市场规制法以公法为主 ,兼有公私法融合的特点 ,其私权救济部分通过民事诉讼实施 ,其刑事制裁部分除独立性的散在立法外已归入刑法典 ,均通过刑事诉讼实施 ,而其基本的实施方法则是行政和行政诉讼。     

论其他承担行政任务的组织

在现代西方国家,在传统的行政机关之外存在其他承担行政任务的组织,如公法人或公共机构甚至私法组织。在中国,有一些非行政机关或行政机构的事业单位和社会团体,由法律、法规授权或由行政机关委托,也承担一定的管理职能。对行政机关以外的其他承担行政任务的组织进行比较和分析,具有重要意义。     

Management-Based Regulation: Prescribing Private Management to Achieve Public Goals

We analyze a little-studied regulatory approach that we call management-based regulation. Management-based regulation directs regulated organizations to engage in a planning process that aims toward the achievement of public goals, offering firms flexibility in how they achieve public goals. In this article, we develop a framework for assessing conditions for using management-based regulation as opposed to the more traditional technology-based or performance-based regulation. Drawing on case studies of management-based regulation in the areas of food safety, industrial safety, and environmental protection, we show how management-based regulation can be an effective strategy when regulated entities are heterogeneous and regulatory outputs are relatively difficult to monitor. In addition to analyzing conditions for the use of management-based regulation, we assess the range of choices regulators confront in designing management-based regulations. We conclude that management-based regulation requires a far more complex intertwining of the public and private sectors than is typical of other forms of regulation, owing to regulators' need to intervene at multiple stages of the production process as well as to the degree of ambiguity over what constitutes "good management."     

私有标准及其反垄断法规制

私人治理背景下,标准呈现出私有化发展趋势。标准私有化的基本含义是企业、企业联合以及行业协会等非政府组织成为标准的制定者,标准私有化发展的结果是大量私有标准的产生。作为市场自我规制工具的私有标准在提高经济效率、促进产品多样化以及保护公共利益方面具有积极效应。但是,私有标准可能会通过滥用市场支配地位、垄断协议等途径产生限制竞争的影响。私有标准的反垄断法规制应坚持合理原则,具有国际化视野。私有标准的反垄断法规制还需秉持发展的态度,顾及产业部门的差异性。     

Private Regulation of the Public Sector: A Neglected Facet of Contemporary Governance

The centrality of regulation among the tools deployed by governments is well established in the social science literature. Regulation of public sector bodies by non-state organizations is an important but neglected aspect of contemporary governance arrangements. Some private regulators derive both authority and power from a legal mandate for their activities. Statutory powers are exercised by private regulators where they are delegated or contracted out. Contractual powers take collective (for example, self-regulatory) and individuated forms. But a further important group of private regulators, operating both nationally and internationally, lack a legal mandate and yet have the capacity to exercise considerable power in constraining governments and public agencies. In a number of cases private regulators operate more complete regulatory regimes (in the sense of controlling standard setting, monitoring, and enforcement elements) than is true of public regulators. While private regulators may enhance the scrutiny given to public bodies (and thus enhance regimes of control and accountability), their existence suggests a need to identify the conditions under which such private power is legitimately held and used. One such condition is the existence of appropriate mechanisms for controlling or checking power. Such controls may take the classic form of public oversight, but may equally be identified in the checks exercised by participation in communities or markets.     

The effect of occupational licensing deregulation on migrants in the German skilled crafts sector

Occupational licensing on the national level reduces labor market prospects of individuals with a low likelihood of fulfilling the licensing requirements. Such regulation has the potential to adversely affect the labor market integration of foreign-born citizens and can be an obstacle to the free movement of labor toward its most productive uses. Before the backdrop of increased levels of migration into Germany, and the discussion about harmonizing labor standards in Europe, this paper empirically examines the effects of the deregulation of occupational licensing in the German crafts sector on the proportion of migrants working in this sector. The results suggest that the deregulation has increased the proportion of migrants among self-employed as well as employed craftsmen in the fully deregulated trades.