对“不确定性”人的权利解读——詹姆斯·格里芬权利思想探析

在"人的权利是什么"这个问题的探讨中,对"人的权利"这一概念的解释并不是非常完善的,传统人的权利中与生俱来的不确定性使得在具体实践中人们无法对权利的主体以及客体做出精准的判定,这是导致人的权利冲突频发的一个重要原因。詹姆斯·格里芬针对人的权利固有的"不确定性",在伦理学的基础上,把用来评价社会的伦理判断作为其起点,给予了人的权利一种更为准确的界定。     

密尔"多数暴政"思想探析——兼与《多数暴政新解》一文商榷

密尔出于对作为民主核心价值的自由与平等二者冲突的反应,看到了多数暴政的潜在威胁,提出了"多数暴政"思想.其多数暴政包括政治专制和社会专制,是指社会中的某个群体凭借数量上的优势对少数人的权利和自由的压制.密尔论述多数暴政思想的语境是代议制民主,是对托克维尔多数暴政思想的继承和发展,目的在于保护少数的权利和完善西方民主政治,这一思想不能作为分析当代中国政治的工具,但对我国政治文明与和谐社会建设具有一定的启发意义.     

大数据、权利实现与基层治理创新

治理的本质是实现权利。以权利为媒介,大数据与治理形成一种间接的因果关系,干预并驱动了基层治理的创新。依循"合作+冲突"的基本逻辑,按照权利的合作、权力的冲突、权利联合权力的三种途径,大数据从价值、技术和资源等三个维度,驱动着公民权利的实现。其中,权利合作表现为一种"差序格局",权力冲突表现为制衡与监察,"合作"权利与"冲突"权力的合作则正在成为一项基本选择。而要提升大数据驱动基层治理创新的效率,需要推动基层政务大数据的开放、共享,完善大数据治理的配套法律法规,培育一个成熟的公民群体。     

建设工程价款相关权利人的权利冲突及平衡问题思考

承包人工程价款优先受偿权、买受人的权利、按揭贷款担保权人的权利在实践中极易冲突且难以判断，文章对三者的权利冲突与平衡问题进行了探讨。     

法学视角下集体行动的概念与正当性辨析

"群体性事件"概念由于不能内含当前社会群体性冲突的维权属性,具有内在的缺陷。以"集体行动"概念指称这类群体性冲突,把集体行动视为是公民以联合行动的方式维护自身生存权利、财产权利和民主权利的一种法律行为,可以将群体性冲突的维权属性涵摄在内,有利于正确认识和把握冲突的本质。从法律冲突、法律效力、权利的性质以及人的自我发展等方面对集体行动进行分析,说明社会转型期发生的集体行动具有正当性依据。     

论言论自由的历史与现状

一部人类文明发展史,就是一部人类争取获得自由的历史,而自资产阶级革命以来,人类为获得政治自由所进行的努力更把这种斗争推进到一个新的领域。言论自由作为公民基本的政治权利的一项首要内容,从来就是统治权与自由权,多数人与少数人之间相互冲突的一个重要方面,善于观察和思考的人们一直把此项权利得以实现的程度作     

马克思主义法学的权利观

马克思主义法学权利观不同于既有的古典自然法学理论范式、分析实证法学理论范式和空想社会主义法学理论范式中的权利观念,而是在历史唯物主义思维框架下,在一个宏大、广阔的历史变革视野中看待权利,以动态、变化的眼光看待权利,在政治经济学的原理分析中看待权利。这种在历史的回溯、现实的观照、未来的预判中所认知的权利,对人类社会发展、法律自身变革起着引领、昭示作用。深入理解马克思主义法学权利观,对于建构中国特色社会主义法学理论、探索中国法学权利概念的适当内涵具有重要指导意义。     

论"以人为本"的法律发展观

在法学的视域中,"以人为本"是与物本、神权和官本相对立的一种理念.要在法律发展中贯彻"以人为本"的理念,就必须以人的权利为价值目标,以人的法律社会化为基础,以法律人才的培养为关键."以人为本"的法律发展观必须坚持三大发展原则,即全面发展、协调发展和可持续发展原则.     

萨托利“有限多数原则”论析

多数原则是人们在民主历程中找到的具有操作性的决定原则。亚里士多德、洛克、卢梭等人都曾论证过多数原则的合理性。萨托利从程序共识的角度讨论了多数原则的合理性，但同时也看到这一原则所具有的多数专制弊端。他延续以往思想家关注少数权利的传统，并从多数与少数的可变性、少数的权利、反对者的权利等方面对有限多数原则进行了详细的阐述。从而完善和发展了人们对多数原则的认识。     

权利、荣誉与职权:承认的三种形式

在工业社会中,谋求承认是人们社会生活的基本内容之一.事实上,工业社会的全部制度设置也都可以解读为通过权利、荣誉与职权这三种基础性的承认形式而对人的承认,因而,对权利、荣誉和职权的分析是有助于我们更好地把握承认关系的实质的.在这三种承认形式中,权利属于社会承认的形式,职权则属于组织承认的范畴,荣誉既会以社会承认的形式出现也会以组织承认的形式出现,但实质上属于社会承认的范畴.权利属于对社会成员的普遍性承认,而荣誉和职权则标示着差异承认.权利、荣誉和职权共同营建起来的是工业社会人与人之间竞争的氛围,它把所有人都置于"为承认而斗争"的过程之中.     

‘Going institutional’ to overcome obstruction: Explaining the suppression of minority rights in Western European parliaments, 1945−2010

When and why do parliamentary majorities in Europe suppress parliamentary minority rights? This article argues that such reforms are driven by substantive policy conflict in interaction with existing minority rights. Government parties curb minority rights if they fear minority obstruction due to increased policy conflict and a minority-friendly institutional status quo. Empirical support is found for this claim using comparative data on all reforms in 13 Western European parliaments since 1945. A curbing of minority rights is significantly more likely under conditions of heightened policy conflict and these effects are stronger the more the institutional status quo favours opposition parties. Contrary to frequent claims of consensual rule changes from single-country studies in Europe, these findings demonstrate the importance of competitive strategies in explaining institutional reform in European parliaments. The conditional impact of the status quo provides interesting theoretical links to historical institutionalist arguments on path dependence.     

Why might constructed nationalist and ethnic ideologies come into confrontation with each other?

The paper develops a model for examining ethnic conflict in Southeast Asia, using Indonesia as an illustrative case. Ethnic conflict is explained as arising not out of the facts of ethno-cultural pluralism, but rather out of the disentwining of the three visions of the nation: as civic community, as ethno-cultural community and as multicultural community.This disentwining occurs particularly in the context of pressures for democratization. Three aspects of politics are identified as promoting the disentwining so as to engender the weakening of the civic nationalist vision, and thence the confrontation between a majoritarian ethno-cultural nationalism and a minority-focused multicultural nationalism. First, the spread of ideas related to democracy generates the spread of liberal forms of the three nationalist visions, alongside the authoritarian forms, and puts the spotlight on the divergences between these visions. Ideas of democracy are then highjacked by ethnic majorities claiming majority rights, and by ethnic minorities claiming minority rights. Second, the patrimonial basis for politics in much of Southeast Asia means that ethnic majorities and minorities alike perceive democratization as the search for responsive patrons, rather than as the search for civic equality. Third, civic nationalism is further weakened by the erosion of faith in the social justice promises of state elites. While these features of politics promote ethnic tensions, they also generate countervailing factors that ensure the political disunity of ethnic minorities, and thereby inhibit the extent of ethnic conflict.     

Equilibrium Party Government

In this article, I present an equilibrium model of party government within a two-party legislature. The theory is predicated upon members of the majority party having potentially conflicting individual and collective interests. In response to this potential conflict, the members of the majority party endogenously choose a degree of control to grant to their leadership. The equilibrium level of party strength is decreasing in the size of the majority party and increasing in the strength of opposition among members of the minority party. The theory implies that the average performance of W-Nominate estimates of majority party members' ideal points will be a decreasing function of the size of the majority party while the performance of these estimates for members of the minority party will not be affected by the size of the majority party. Using data from the U.S. House and Senate between 1866 and 2004, the theory's predictions are largely consistent with roll-call voting in both chambers.     

"Conquered Provinces"? The Voting Rights Act and State Power

Congress will soon review key provisions of the Voting RightsAct (VRA). A perennial concern has been the act's effect onfederalism. In 1982, Congress amended the VRA both to preventdiscriminatory electoral outcomes and to enhance minority politicalpower. Since the 1990s, the Supreme Court has adjudicated theVRA in a way that limits states' use of race to protect thatpower. An informal alliance has since emerged between Congress,the Justice Department, states, and minority voters againstwhat they view as a retrogressive voting rights jurisprudence.This article will argue that Congress should restore state autonomyto use race as a remedial factor when districting by reaffirmingthe spirit and intent of the 1982 amendments.     

新型人格权的塑造及其法律方法救济

转型社会中，各种新型人格利益层出不穷。但在人格利益转化为人格权上，却存在着利益泛化为权利以及权利的绝对化等问题。这一方面是因为在权利的确定中，不能有效运用法治思维进行新型人格权的塑造；另一方面，在权利的保护上，长期的“立法中心主义”造成诸多新型人格权利难以通过司法程序有效救济的僵局。所以，新型人格权的塑造及其保护必须诉诸“司法中心主义”的立场转换，并把新型人格权利的自然权利属性和伦理价值诉求变为可予以司法救济的法治诉求。此过程主要表现为裁决中的法律方法运用。如通过法律解释方法探寻案件裁判的法律依据；通过利益衡量方法明确权利泛化及冲突的权衡标准；以及通过法律修辞方法拨开笼罩在典型人格利益纠纷案上的权力或道德修辞迷雾。     

Terror,territoriality and the struggle for indigeneity and citizenship in northern Nigeria

The struggle of the minority ethnic groups against the majority Hausa-Fulani ethnic-amalgam in the north of Nigeria has persisted. As a result of the twentieth-century jihad and politico-cultural and economic factors, Fulani (Muslims) are found in many parts of the minority areas of the geographical north. Many of the minority ethnic groups often claim to be ‘indigenous’ to the areas and regard the Fulani – and Hausa – as ‘settlers’. The struggle for political, economic and social values and rights in these communities often produce violent clashes between these indigenous groups and the settler Hausa-Fulani. This paper uses the territorial claims and counter-claims over indigeneity in the Yelwa area between the Tarok/other ethnic (Christian) groups and the Fulani/other ethnic (Muslim) groups which degenerated into serial blood-letting in 2004 to interrogate the citizen-deficit in Nigeria, and the contradictions of reconciling indigenous rights with citizenship rights in a typical multi-ethnic postcolonial state.     

REPRESENTATION, REAPPORTIONMENT, AND THE SUPREME COURT

Abstract. The reapportionment of congressional and state legislative districts occasioned by decennial censuses has generated intense political and judicial conflict. This conflict has made clearer several obstacles to a deeper understanding of the nature of representation. It has also led to the fashioning of a new equal protection jurisprudence by the Supreme Court in an attempt to grapple with apportionment disputes. The Court has established clear standards for redistricting congressional and state legislative seats. Yet after two decades, the Court has still not produced judicially manageable standards to deal with the problems of partisan gerrymandering, affirmative gerrymandering,'political fairness', and the Court's impact on public policy. A review of the pertinent cases makes it possible to forecast the probable outcome of litigation involving these issues in the 1980 round of reapportionments.     

Legality and (dis)membership: removal of citizenship and the creation of ‘virtual immigrants’ in the 1967 Israeli occupied territories

This article seeks to show that liberal law continues to justify and legitimize displacements of minority populations, even in an age of universal human rights. As demonstrated by the Israeli court's 1988 decision legitimating the deportation of Mubarak Awad, citizenship and immigration laws provide juridical justifications for contemporary ethno-national settler projects. In the aftermath of a territorial conflict that defines or redefines the bounds of the state, native minority populations are vulnerable to being legally recast as ‘aliens’ or ‘virtual immigrants’. National conflict may thus be transformed by legal formalism into a question of immigration law, allowing the power relations that produce state sovereignty to slip into the background.     

Policing alienated minorities in divided cities

Minority groups frequently challenge the legitimacy of legal authorities, particularly the police. Without trust and legitimacy, the police encounter constant conflict and cannot function effectively. While past research has examined minorities’ perceptions of the police, national minorities provide an interesting and under‐investigated test case because of their inherent identity conflict with the state. The current research examines three factors to explain minority–majority disparities in views of the police: (i) police effectiveness and fairness; (ii) intergroup discrimination (termed relative deprivation in policing); and (iii) identification with the state. Findings from a survey of Jewish and Arab residents of nationally mixed neighborhoods in Israel (n = 394) suggest that while all of these factors account for minority–majority discrepancies in views of the police, perceptions of police fairness are particularly important. Furthermore, feelings of discrimination and low levels of identification with the state are less important than evaluations of fairness in explaining minorities’ negative perceptions of the police.     

Crafting radical opposition or reproducing homonormativity? Consociationalism and LGBT rights activism in Lebanon

There is little research on the struggles surrounding gay rights in divided societies emerging from intrastate conflict and characterized by consociational power sharing, which allocates rights to the main ethnic groups. While consociational arrangements – predicated on a minority rights regime – theoretically open up constitutional space for LGBT rights, they often negate such possibilities by empowering ethnic hardliners opposed to sexual minorities. This article explores how Lebanese LGBT activists conceptualize rights and craft mobilization tactics and strategies. I focus on an “identity dilemma” faced by Lebanese activists: to create a public identity for rights demands or to elide such a process. While the former strategy seeks openings in the power sharing structure, the latter aims for a radical form of resistance against the sectarianism of consociationalism. Activists pursuing the latter strategy, moreover, see consociationalism as encouraging an LGBT mobilization that reproduces the sectarian system and is complicit with homonormativity.