选定法官与法定法官——由我国台湾地区选定法官制度谈祖国大陆民事程序改革

我国台湾地区于2003年6月5日公布了《民事诉讼合意选定法官审判暂行条例》,这在世界范围内是一项创新性制度,该制度反映出了对当事人程序主体地位的保障,充分尊重了当事人对程序的选择权。我国的司法审判方式改革已经进行了十余年,在我国《民事诉讼法》修改之际,通过借鉴我国台湾地区的司法制度改革,我国民事诉讼法的修改应提升公众对司法的信赖度、对裁判的信服度和接纳度,充分体现对人权的保障,在司法改革中坚持合宪性要求。     

Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

On 28 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decisionin Mugesera, bringing to an end the decade-long legal saga involvinga speech made by Leon Mugesera in November 1992 in Rwanda. Whilethe decision of the Supreme Court was handed down in the contextof an immigration case, its impact will be mostly felt in therealm of criminal law, as the court embraced international jurisprudencefor the international elements of crimes against humanity. Inaddition, the decision is important for three reasons: it (i)clarified the interrelationship between international and domesticcriminal law; (ii) examined the notion of hate crime; and (iii)analysed the concept of inchoate crimes.     

Judging gender: difference and dissent at the Supreme Court of Canada

Over 25 years ago, Justice Bertha Wilson asked “Will women judges really make a difference?” Taking up her question, we consider the place of difference in gender and judging. Our focus is on those ‘differences of opinion’ between judges that take the form of written and published judicial dissent. We present and interrogate recent statistics about practices of dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to gender. The statistics are provocative, but do not provide straightforward answers about gender and judging. They do, however, pose new questions, and suggest the importance of better theorizing and exploring the space of dissent.     

Progressive Reform and the Decline of Democratic Accountability: The Popular Election of State Supreme Court Judges, 1850-1920

This essay probes the relationship among different kinds of political cultures, the conduct of judicial elections, and the extent of dissent on the state supreme courts of California, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas from 1850 to 1920. The introduction at the turn of the twentieth century of Progressive election reforms—most notably the secret ballot, the direct party primary, and the nonpartisan ballot—reduced levels of turnout in judicial contests and increased roll-off from major statewide political to judicial elections. These reforms made judicial elections the tail on the electoral kite and denied the public its best means of regulating judicial policy making. Yet these changes in the electorate's behavior were seemingly unrelated to variations in the rate of dissent in these four state courts, whose judges apparently viewed popular partisan election as more a potential than a real threat to their independence.     

Scientific-Methodological Conference of USSR Supreme Court

The Scientific Consultative Council under the USSR Supreme Court has held a scientific-methodological conference. It was in preparation for a long time. As early as July 1965, the journal Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost' informed its readers of the forthcoming conference and published an article by S. Radzhabov, "Improve the Administration of the Courts" [Sovershenstvovat' sudebnoe upravlenie], and another by S. Komissarov, "The Supervisory Powers of the USSR Supreme Court Need Improving" [Nadzornye polnomochiia Verkhovnogo Suda Soiuza SSR nuzhdaiutsia v sover-shenstvovanii]. In August of last year a report was published of a round-table conference conducted by the editors and devoted to the effectiveness of criminal punishment. Subsequently, the journals Sotsialisticheskaia zakonnost', Sovetskaia iustitsiia, and Radians'ke pravo have been publishing, in each of their issues, articles, surveys, and proposals on improving the functioning of the courts and increasing the effectiveness of criminal punishment.     

Relations Between the Ussr Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts of the Union Republics

As we know, the Supreme Court of the USSR and the supreme courts of the union republics did not come into being simultaneously. The supreme courts of the union republics came first, followed by the USSR Supreme Court.     

Credible Commitments and the Early American Supreme Court

Conventional wisdom holds that the role of the U.S. federal judiciary was underspecified and undefined until the era of Chief Justice John Marshall. In contrast, I argue that prior to the Marshall era, the Supreme Court had the specific institutional role of providing an administrative remedy to aggrieved nations to deprive potentially hostile nations of any excuse for belligerence. Specifically, concern among the Framers about this nascent country's absence of dispute resolution mechanisms in the areas of trade and admiralty was critical in the institutional design of the judiciary. Original jurisdiction was designed primarily to remedy trade disputes. The independent judiciary made trade commitments more credible and self-help by the aggrieved less likely. By providing this administrative remedy and lowering the uncertainty associated with trading with revolutionaries, the Framers claimed a seat for the new country at the table of nations. Moreover, enhanced commercial credibility that the administrative avenue for redress provided was instrumental in the early economic development of the United States.