论法院处理环境纠纷案件中的司法能动

司法能动是法院在案件审理中,不因循先例和遵从成文法的字面含义进行司法解释的一种司法理念以及基于此理念的行动。我国法院在发挥司法能动性,处理环境纠纷案件方面作出了大量努力,为经济社会发展提供了司法保障。但法院在发挥司法能动性处理环境纠纷案件中仍然存在较大的问题。解决这些问题,必须把握法院在环境纠纷案件处理中司法能动的向度,落实司法独立,引导法官正确行使自由裁量权,努力培养环境司法专业人才,发挥法官适用法律的能动性。     

Adding constitutional depravation to untimely death: South Dakota's living will pregnancy provision

In 1991, the South Dakota Legislature enacted a living will statute. Included is a pregnancy provision that prevents pregnant women from obtaining the full benefit of the statute. A South Dakota Attorney General's opinion was released discussing the conflict of laws problems posed by the statute. That opinion, however, did not address the more important question of the constitutionality of the pregnancy provision. This comment analyzes the pregnancy provision under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Establishment Clauses and concludes that South Dakota's pregnancy provision is unconstitutional under all three doctrines.     

The minor's right of privacy: limitations on state action after Danforth and Carey.

The current status of the minor's right of privacy is examined, and the possible interests of parents and the state in controlling the minor's childbearing decisions is evaluated. Attention is directed to the development of an adult right of privacy and the potential barriers blocking its full extension to minors. The impact of the Danforth and Carey decisions extended the right of privacy to protect a minor's childbearing decisions from unwarranted state interference, and the constitutionality of statues that predicate a minor's abortion or contraceptive decision on either prior parental notification or parental judicial approval. The scope and vitality of the protection afforded by the Danforth and Carey decisions will be largely undermined if a minor's fundamental decisions are held to be constitutionally subject to parental or judicial review. State-mandated involvement of 3rd parties, aside from the minor's attending physician, in the decision to prevent or terminate pregnancy serves no significant state interest. Rather such restrictions impermissibly subject minors to the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. Additionally, by selectively burdening only those childbearing decisions which result in the prevention or termination of pregnancy, parental consent, consultation, and notification requirements violate the Roe decision's insistence on a neutral state policy towards the outcome of fundamental personal choices. In sum, state-assisted parental or judicial intervention in the minor's childbearing decisions unconstitutionally limits the protection granted by the right of privacy.     

论我国宪法司法适用的空间

宪法司法适用不等同于违宪审查或宪法诉讼 ,它所涉及的是普通法院在审理民事、行政以及刑事案件时能否附带进行违宪审查或直接援引宪法条款来裁决民事、行政、刑事案件的问题。人民代表大会制并不意味着我国宪法没有司法适用的空间。事实上 ,人民法院完全可以在以下三个方面适用宪法 :对行政机关和社会组织抽象行为的附带性违宪审查、宪法的民事适用和刑事适用。     

Judicial Waivers of Parental Consent for Abortion: Tennessee's Troubles Putting Policy into Practice*

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, minors seeking abortions are entitled to petition for relief from state‐mandated parental consent. To facilitate the actualization of this right, Tennessee included procedural mechanisms that go beyond those in effect in most states in its parental consent statute. This paper examines whether these additional mechanisms allow Tennessee to succeed where other states have failed. Our findings indicate that these mechanisms mitigate to some extent the sort of implementation failure observed in other states. However, the magnitude of this mitigation is not sufficient to establish that parental consent statutes can be implemented in accordance with Supreme Court requirements.     

Extending the Practice of Physician‐Assisted Suicide to Competent Minors

In an effort to address the mental and physical suffering terminally ill patients endure, some states have either legalized or decriminalized physician‐assisted suicide—a practice commonly referred to as death with dignity. However, as the practice of physician‐assisted suicide becomes accepted among states, competent minors continue to be excluded from legislative and judicial decisions. Regardless of parental consent, states institute an age requirement of eighteen years old for participants of physician‐assisted suicide. This Note proposes that states amend their physician‐assisted suicide statutes to (1) remove any age restriction, (2) create a standard of competency that minors must meet to be eligible for physician‐assisted suicide, and (3) implement a procedure to determine whether a minor meets the competency standard.     

Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors

Despite recent innovations in alternative reproduction technology and the increased use of artificial insemination procedures, courts and legislatures have been unable to develop a clear and consistent test to establish the parental rights and obligations of sperm donors. As a result, there are mixed outcomes in cases where intended parents seek child support from an unsuspecting donor or when donors petition the court for visitation with their biological children. This Note seeks to resolve the ambiguity in determining sperm donors’ parental status by proposing a model state statute that makes nonpaternity the default rule. Under the statute, sperm donors would not be subject to any of the parental rights or obligations of a traditional biological father. However, the presumption of nonpaternity could be overcome if the parties agree, in writing, prior to the insemination. Further, the model statute provides an exception to the default rule if the donor has played an active role in the child's life. Adopting this model statute will not only facilitate a market for sperm donation but also make donor rights and obligations clear from the onset.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Today, infants born using artificial reproduction technology (ART) represent more than one percent of children born in the United States annually.
• When a donor is anonymous, the law is clear: the donor is not a legal parent. However, the law regarding known donors is less straightforward. Depending on the state and the particular circumstances, the parental status of a known donor is questionable.
• The ambiguity in the law creates confusion and disagreement among the parties in a donor agreement. By comparing factually similar cases, in which courts interpreted donor statutes with identical language, in completely opposite ways, it is easy to see the unpredictability in ART cases.
• The proposed model statute provides unambiguous legislation that sets out a clear standard to be used in determining the parental status of known donors. If adopted by state legislatures, courts across the country would finally have a consistent rule to apply, leading to less confusion and contradictory rulings.
• The key issue is honoring intentional parentage and the proactive choice to use ART to have a child on one's own terms.

     

CONTEXTUAL DISPARITIES IN GUIDELINES DEPARTURES: COURTROOM SOCIAL CONTEXTS,GUIDELINES COMPLIANCE,AND EXTRALEGAL DISPARITIES IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING1

This study examines the theoretical and empirical linkages between criminal court social contexts and the judicial use of sentences that deviate from the recommendations of sentencing guidelines. Individual sentencing data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) are combined with county‐level measures of social context to examine predictions about the role courtroom characteristics play in judicial departures. Results from hierarchical analyses suggest that the likelihood of departure varies significantly across courts, even after accounting for variations in individual case characteristics. Several measures of courtroom social context—including the size of the court, its caseload pressure and the overall guidelines compliance rate—are significantly related to the individual likelihood of receiving a departure sentence. Moreover, the social context of the court also conditions the influence of various individual‐level sentencing considerations. Findings are discussed in relation to contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision making and future directions for research on contextual disparities in criminal sentencing are suggested.     

高校校规的违宪审查问题

我国高校虽然不具有行政机关的资格 ,但法律赋予它行使一定的行政管理权 ,所以 ,我国高校校规是一种自治规章 ,属于抽象行政行为。大学生是国家的普通公民 ,享有宪法规定的权利 ,但现行司法体制在处理高校校规侵犯大学生宪法权利的行为时存在许多缺憾。为使高校管理法治化 ,高校校规必须接受违宪审查。法院在审查校规合宪性时应遵循一些原则 ,诸如法层级效力规则、校规合宪性推定规则、禁止歧视对等规则等     

Judicial Review,Irrationality, and the Legitimacy of Merits-Review

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. The author in a previous article in this study found that the courts, on occasions, had intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions arguably were not irrational. To this end, the purpose of this article is to assess the constitutionality of these seemingly low standards of irrationality. The author does so by reference either to the manner of review employed—the use of the proportionality principle, for example—or the context of the administrative decision under scrutiny, such as the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The author finds that the cases from the previous article where low standards of irrationality were arguably adopted were, in fact, legitimate according to these chosen methods of evaluation. However, this is an interim conclusion because, for reasons of word length, the author is unable to complete a full assessment here. It is therefore proposed that a subsequent article will continue to examine the constitutionality of these cases. Furthermore, the author will also try and establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are excluded from irrationality review. If the author is unsuccessful in this regard, the final conclusion of this study will inevitably be that low standards of judicial intervention exist without limit—a clear assault on the constitutional principle stated above.

Legitimacy and Internet in the Judiciary: A Lesson From the Italian Courts' Websites Experience

Judiciaries in democratic countries have been facing problemsof low legitimacy due to increasing judicial activism. Traditionalforms of accountability have shown to be inadequate to the presentsituation. The purpose of this article is to examine whethereasy access to information on judicial systems, courts’activities and cases available through the Internet can increaselegitimacy. Although websites can be a tool to enhance accountability,transparency, legality and representativeness of the judiciary,the results of this article show that this is not always thecase. The authors hypothesize that enhancements occur when certaincombinations of four core elements (organization of the webservice provision, access to information, content, and users)take place. Based on an examination of all websites of threejudicial systems, we seek to provide an initial outlook on theuse of websites in facilitating legitimacy, and a contributionto knowledge in the field of courts and ICT.     

Codification of Administrative Law: The US and the Union

Abstract: The US Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 was engendered by partisan political conflicts. Initially judicial review of administrative rule-making under the act was extremely deferent. In the course of the 1960s and 1970s the federal courts, basing themselves upon the unchanged language of the statute, created a new body of administrative law characterised by very great demands on the agencies and very intrusive judicial review. This transformation was fuelled by partisan realignments, fear of technocracy and desire for greater transparency and popular participation in government decision-making. Because these same forces are now active in relation to the Union, it may be anticipated that similar tendencies toward a demanding procedural law of rule-making and high levels of judicial review will be felt as Union administrative law develops.     

Constitutional law--New Jersey abortion statute unconstitutionally vague on its face

The old New Jersey abortion statute held that abortion before the quickening of the child was not indictable. The Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) of Princeton, New Jersey, is a consolidation of 2 suits in the District Court questioning the constitutionality of the New Jersey statute. The court ruled that the women plaintiffs were without standing to raise the question of constitutionality. The court also ruled that because of the prosecutions for committing illegal abortions, the abortions, the physicians had a sufficient legal interest to argue that the statute deprives the physician of the right to practice medicine according to the highest standards of medical practice and violates the right to privacy of the patients.     

美国服刑人员诉诸司法之权利的宪法保护研究——以美国宪法判例为对象

在美国,服刑人员诉诸司法之权利是一项受宪法保护的基本权利。这一权利的基本权利性质并非来自于宪法文本的明文规定,而是由宪法判例加以确认的。从服刑人员诉诸司法之权利领域的案例法发展历程来看,美国联邦最高法院的司法判断决定了服刑人员诉诸司法之权利受到保护的层次、程度和范围,其中1977年的邦德斯案具有里程碑意义。虽然立法和行政对这一案例法的发展状况也产生了一定影响,但司法的独特功能是实现对服刑人员诉诸司法之权利进行宪法保护的根本保障。     

Federal Family Drug Treatment Courts: Providing Positive Possibilities

Due to the lack of family drug treatment courts, families are often torn apart when a parent has a substance abuse problem. Children of substance abusers are often abused and neglected. However, children in these tough living situations fear seeking help because they do not want to be the reason that their family is torn apart and they are placed in the foster care system. This Note proposes a federal statute that requires all states to implement family drug treatment courts. These courts allow families to stay intact while providing the parent with the help that he or she needs.     

论人民代表大会制度下司法对规范的违宪审查

为了建构我国的民主政治体制,切实保障公民权利的实现,树立宪法的最高权威,充分发挥司法权的内在功能,克服立法机关违宪审查机制的弊端和微效,我国应参考世界通行做法,导入司法对规范的违宪审查制度。20年来,决策层总是以司法违宪审查制度与人民代表大会制度相抵触而拒纳,这是对人民代表大会制度的误读。其实两者不矛盾,可以共存。综合各种因素考虑,我国最好建立宪法法院与普通法院相结合的司法对规范的违宪审查制度。     

Judicial Activism in Perilous Times: The Turkish Case

Under what circumstances do courts act in ways that challenge the political hegemony of the military in countries with weak democratic institutions? This article addresses this question by focusing on a critical case of judicial activism in Turkey. It argues that lower courts unexpectedly can be centers of judicial activism that contributes to expansion of civil liberties and restrictions on arbitrary state power when the high judiciary supports the political status quo. This is because lower courts provide greater access to legal mobilization pursued by civil society actors. At the same time, judicial activism in lower courts is sustainable only when political power is distributed among elites with conflicting interests, and the civilian government offers support and protection to activist members of the judiciary.     

美国种族隔离案件裁决与宪法解释方法

宪法解释是法院依照宪法审理案件、体现对社会动态合宪性评价的重要方式。通过对有关种族隔离案件的裁决,美国最高法院在推翻种族隔离、发展民权运动的历程中扮演着重要角色。本文选取三个典型案例——使"平等隔离"理论合宪化的"普莱西案"、推翻"平等隔离"理论的"布朗第一案"和将"平等保护"条款适用于联邦政府的"特区学校第一案"——阐述原旨主义与非原旨主义的论争以及历史解释和结构解释等宪法解释方法的运用。多种宪法解释方法时常结合使用,在具体案件审理中可能需要综合予以考虑。     

Juvenile justice: a basic framework for the implementation of a functional juvenile justice system

The provision of appeal in arbitration law is a place where the judicial intervention can take place. One of the reasons many parties choose arbitration over litigation is the finality of the arbitral award even though a trial court may be more likely to deliver a legally correct result. The scope of appeal to the court in matters relating to arbitration is made very much limited by the statute in India. But despite several constraints and restrictions imposed by the legislature, this paper argues, the role of the judiciary still vastly remains interventionist in nature in some form or the other which is unacceptable.     

Dubious delegation: Article III limits on mental health treatment decisions

A common condition of supervised release requires a defendant, post-incarceration, to participate in a mental health treatment program. Federal district courts often order probation officers to make certain decisions ancillary to these programs. However, Article III delegation doctrine places limits on such actions. This Note addresses the constitutionality of delegating the "treatment program" decision, in which a probation officer decides which type of treatment the defendant must undergo; the choice is often between inpatient treatment and other less restrictive alternatives. The resolution of this issue ultimately depends on whether this decision constitutes a "judicial act." Finding support in lower court case law, this Note argues that a "judicial act" encompasses decisions affecting the defendant's significant liberty interests. The Supreme Court case law and the mental health literature make clear that significant liberty interests are at stake in these "treatment program" decisions. Thus, delegating the "treatment program" decision to probation officers is unconstitutional under Article III. The Note concludes by suggesting a constitutionally permissible scheme whereby the judge orders a maximally intrusive treatment while giving the probation officer the discretion to choose a less restrictive program.