美国的行政立法听证制度探讨

行政立法听证是指行政立法主体在立法时听取有关当事人意见的程序制度。美国的行政立法听证制度发展比较完善 ,其法理基础是美国宪法所确认的“正当法律程序”原则。听证的方式有正式听证程序、非正式听证程序以及混合听证程序 ,但实践中常见的是混合听证程序。行政立法听证具有传播信息、宣传立法、协调利益关系以及安全阀的功能 ,但也有一些不足之处。美国的法律和立法实践也确立了一些不实行听证的情形     

浅谈行政听证法律制度

听证制度作为公民参与行政管理的重要制度已成为当今世界法冶各国行政程序法的核心内容。听证制度有利于当事人充分行使陈述申辩权，维护自己的合法权益，有助于行政机关依法实施行政处罚，防止和减少错误发生。听证制度有力地体现了处罚与教育相结合的原则，提高了公民的法制意识。但是，听证在实践中仍有一些问题值得探讨，听证制度在某些方面仍需进一步改进、完善。     

行政听证制度的法律价值分析

行政听证制度的法律价值分析王周户柯阳友在我国立法及实践中，行政听证制度尚处于初创阶段，目前只是在行政处罚领域中建立了听证制度。对行政听证制度的规范和功能进行实证分析固然重要，但挖掘听证制度深层的价值内涵和精神意蕴，进行更高层次的价值分析则更为重要。法...     

立法听证制度存在的问题及完善建议

立法听证制度作为听证的一种形式,已经在我国立法实践中起到了良好的作用。但由于缺乏制度规范,立法听证制度在发展中出现了混乱无序的现象,影响了实际功能的发挥。完善立法听证制度可以有效地促进我国的政治体制改革和民主法制建设。     

浅析价格听证制度

听证制度作为行政法制度的一个重要组成部分,体现民众参与政策制定,体现我国民主集中制的原则。价格听证制度随着我国《价格法》的出台而逐渐确立,《价格法》对一些关系消费者切身利益的方案政策必须要举行听证制度,这为公众参与行政机关的决策提供途径,体现我国的民主原则。价格听证制度的实施已经有一段时间,但是在实践中也存在一定的问题,如听证代表存在身份造假与被代表的现象、听证会透明度不足以及价格听证制度惩罚机制不完善等,因此针对这类问题,从完善价格听证代表遴选机制、提升价格听证会的透明度以及建立有效的惩罚机制等方面进行完善我国的价格听证制度。     

论我国行政听证制度

听证制度是源自于英美法系中自然公正的听取两方面意见的法理,是现代社会民主的标志.所谓的听证,即是国家机关在做出某项决定前,组织召集特定对象,公开、公平地听取意见、建议的一种活动.可以分为立法听证、司法听证、行政听证.随着1996年我国的《行政处罚法》颁布,听证制度已经被我国以法律的形式确立下来.行政听证制度是指行政机关在行使行政权作出影响行政相对方一方当事人的权利义务的决定前,给与当事人就重要事实表述意见机会的程序性的一种法律制度.行政听政制度是一种重要的现代行政程序法的核心制度,在很多国家的法律中都有规定.     

立法听证制度的功能分析

立法听证是立法主体在立法活动中 ,进行有关涉及到公民、法人或者其他组织的权益的立法时 ,给予利害关系人发表意见的机会 ,是立法活动中的一项程序制度。总的来说 ,它是一项有利有弊的制度。本文从技术和宪政两个层面分析了立法听证制度的功能 ,以及影响功能发挥的因素。并根据分析提出我国在借鉴和采纳这一制度 ,推进立法民主化的过程中应注意的几个方面。     

中国立法听证制度建置的若干建议

立法听证制度是指各级立法机关在提出法案动议或审议法案时 ,按照一定的法律程序 ,使与该法案有关的民众与专家、学者充分发表不同意见 ,以便立法机关最大程度地吸收民意 ,为科学、合理地制定法案提供依据的立法制度。在现代民主政治体制中 ,立法听证制度是贯彻人民主权原则 ,实现人民当家作主 ,保障立法符合民意 ,维护公众参政权、议政权和立法监督权的重要途径和制度。立法听证制度在西方国家已被广泛采用。在我国 ,立法听证制度处于初创阶段 ,缺乏应有的理论和实验经验。据不完全统计 ,截止到 2 0 0 1年 1 2月底 ,先后有 2 1个省、市举行…     

论我国价格听证制度的完善

行政听证制度作为行政程序的核心制度,特别是价格听证制度,是民主制度在我国行政领域的重要体现和重要标志。当下关于价格听证的信任危机愈演愈烈,听证主体群体的单一和"逢听必涨"的怪圈、听证参加人缺乏民意代表性及其遴选机制不科学、听证记录的法律效力不明确、听证缺乏监督机制等成为了热点问题。建立和健全价格听证制度,对于保障行政相对人的知情权和参与权,增强政府价格决策的"透明度",确保价格决策机制的公正性、科学性和民主性都具有十分重要的意义。本文首先从价格听证制度的概念引入,然后分析我国价格听证制度当中听证代表遴选机制、听证主持人制度、听证笔录效力以及相应的价格听证监督和救济机制,以我国听证制度存在的不足为依据,提出一些自己的建议。     

我国假释听证制度的构建

长期以来,我国对假释案件采用书面审理的方式,被报请假释的服刑人员被排除于程序之外,没有表达意见和申辩的机会,检察机关对人民法院的裁判过程亦无法监督。由于这种审理方式缺乏公开性和透明度,从而导致裁判结果的公正性受到质疑,因此,构建假释听证制度就成为弥补书面审理方式缺陷的必然选择。我国各地正在试行的假释听证实践虽然彰显了假释听证制度的合理性,但由于缺乏立法的根据使其面临合法性危机,因此,通过立法的方式将假释听证制度合法化就变得非常必要。     

错误的生命之诉的法律适用

错误的生命之诉是近年来出现的一种新型诉讼。目前,法国、美国五个州的最高法院准许了原告就此提起的财产损害赔偿请求,而英国、美国19个州的最高法院、加拿大的两个省、德国联邦宪法法院均驳回了原告的损害赔偿请求。但实际上,全部或部分驳回原告方诉讼请求所持的理由并不成立,原告的确受到了侵害,受侵害的客体是拥有充分知情的父母的利益。     

Medicare program; aggregation of Medicare claims for administrative appeals--HCFA. Final rule

Medicare beneficiaries and, under certain circumstances, providers, physicians and other entities furnishing health care services may appeal adverse determinations regarding certain claims for benefits payable under part A and part B of Medicare. For administrative appeals at the carrier or intermediary hearing level or administrative law judge (ALJ) level and for any subsequent judicial review, the amount remaining in dispute must meet or exceed threshold amounts set by statute. Section 1869(b)(2) of the Social Security Act permits claims to be aggregated to reach the ALJ hearing threshold amounts. This final rule establishes a system of aggregation under which individual appellants have one set of requirements for aggregating claims and two or more appellants have a different set of requirements for aggregating claims.     

Listening to voices: The use of phenomenology to differentiate malingered from genuine auditory verbal hallucinations

The experience of hearing a voice in the absence of an appropriate external stimulus, formally termed an auditory verbal hallucination (AVH), may be malingered for reasons such as personal financial gain, or, in criminal cases, to attempt a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. An accurate knowledge of the phenomenology of AVHs is central to assessing the veracity of claims to such experiences. We begin by demonstrating that some contemporary criminal cases still employ inaccurate conceptions of the phenomenology of AVHs to assess defendants' claims. The phenomenology of genuine, malingered, and atypical AVHs is then examined. We argue that, due to the heterogeneity of AVHs, the use of typical properties of AVHs as a yardstick against which to evaluate the veracity of a defendant's claims is likely to be less effective than the accumulation of instances of defendants endorsing statements of atypical features of AVHs. We identify steps towards the development of a formal tool for this purpose, and examine other conceptual issues pertinent to criminal cases arising from the phenomenology of AVHs.     

Young people who sexually abuse: the Scottish context

This paper describes the policy and legal context in Scotland in respect of alleged young sexual abusers and considers the challenges encountered by decision-makers, particularly reporters operating in the Scottish children's hearings system. These include the nature of the problem, resources, child witnesses and corroboration. It is argued that reporters, in considering whether or not to refer an alleged young sexual abuser to a children's hearing or to take no action, encounter influences in both directions, but on balance there appear to be more obstacles in the way of a referral to a hearing.     

职权探知主义转向辩论主义的思考

我国民事诉讼法长期奉行职权探知主义。随着审判方式改革的推进,通过司法解释初步确立了辩论主义。但是我国当前民事诉讼中的辩论主义存在诸多缺陷。克服这些缺陷并完善我国民事诉讼中的辩论主义,必须建立起辩论主义的理论体系,改变法官职业群体的传统思维,并对现有的有关辩论主义的制度进行修改、补充和重构。     

Do C&IT Facilitate the Wrong Things?

There is a simple view of the role of C&IT (computers and information technology) in the legal academy that states, 'C&IT is just a tool. Use it or abuse it as you will. It has no ideology. It can no more be a bad thing than can a car or a chisel'. It is an additional resource on top of whatever we had before. I want to link that claim to a set of analogous claims about the relationship between law and science and law and mathematics, and subject them to scrutiny. I shall call these claims (that science, mathematics and computers are 'just' tools) collectively the 'neutrality claim'. So far as concerns computers, I shall suggest that C&IT in law has a tendency either towards reaction or towards reductionism in how we understand law in the academy. I will finish by considering an area in which computers have been relatively more successful-chess-and trying to work through the similarities and distinctions.     

行政信访处理纠纷的预设模式检讨

《信访条例》将行政信访定位为诉讼、行政复议和仲裁的补充渠道,承袭这些机制处理纠纷的核心技术,预设了处理信访事项的"规范一决定"裁决模式。经检验,该模式预设与行政信访处理争议的制度效能不足具有明显相关性。实践中,行政信访处理的事项,多属"利益分配、调整型决策"和"抽象法律、政策目标落实"引发的争议。此两类事项通常缺乏具体的指引规则,该模式易被作为回绝信访诉求的制度庇护。即便进行裁量处理,裁决机制也因"利益分配、调整型"决策具有"多中心任务"特征而难以适用,对于要求充分实现法律或政策目标的诉求,裁决机制难以提供有效的救济方案。     

The mouse that trolled: the long and tortuous history of a gene mutation patent that became an expensive impediment to Alzheimer's research

This case study presents the tale of the academic discovery of a rare mutation for early-onset Alzheimer''s disease that was patented by a sole inventor and licensed to a non-practicing entity (NPE), the Alzheimer''s Institute of America (AIA). Our aims are (1) to relate this story about patents, research tools, and impediments to medical progress, and (2) to inform ongoing debates about how patents affect research, disposition of university inventions, and the distribution of benefits from publicly funded research. We present an account of the hunt for Alzheimer''s genes, their patenting, assignment, and enforcement based on literature, litigation records and judicial decisions. While AIA''s litigation eventually failed, its suits against 18 defendants, including one university, one foundation, and three non-profit organizations were costly in court years, legal fees, and expert time. Reasons for the failure included non-disclosure of co-inventors, State laws on ownership and assignment of university inventions, and enablement. We discuss the policy implications of the litigation, questioning the value of patents in the research ecosystem and the role of NPEs (“patent trolls”) in biotechnological innovation. The case illustrates tactics that may be deployed against NPEs, including, avenues to invalidate patent claims, Authorization and Consent, legislative reforms specifically targeting NPEs, reforms in the America Invents Act, and judicial action and rules for judicial proceedings. In the highly competitive research environment of Alzheimer''s genetics in the 1990s, patents played a minor, subordinate role in spurring innovation. The case produces a mixed message about the patent system. It illustrates many mistakes in how patents were obtained, administered, and enforced, but, eventually, the legal system rectified these mistakes, albeit slowly, laboriously, and at great cost.     

Burying Bell: Managing the Judicialisation of Social Security Tribunals

The Social Security Act 1998 introduced fundamental changes to the tribunal system for hearing appeal claims in respect of benefits. This article examines the reasons for these changes to the largest tribunal system in the United Kingdom, and their implications for claimants. It emphasises the increasing legalism and approximation to ordinary courts of these tribunals. In particular, the article considers the implications of the reduction of lay membership of tribunals and the threats posed to the traditional inquisitorial approach.     

Vexatious Claims: Challenging the Case for Employment Tribunal Fees

Since July 2013, recourse to Employment Tribunals in the United Kingdom has attracted fees of up to £1,200 for single claimants. The impact of this reform has been dramatic: within a year, claims dropped by nearly 80 per cent. This paper suggests that this fee regime is in clear violation of domestic and international norms, including Article 6(1) ECHR and the EU principle of effective judicial protection. Drawing on rational choice theory and empirical evidence, we argue that the resulting payoff structures, negative for the majority of successful claimants, strike at the very essence of these rights. The measures are, furthermore, disproportionate in light of the Government's stated policy aims: fees have failed to transfer cost away from taxpayers, have failed to encourage early dispute resolution, and have failed to deter vexatious litigants. The only vexatious claims, we find, appear to be those which motivated the reforms in the first place.