我国民事检察监督制度的问题与改革路径

一、我国民事检察监督制度的缺陷 从法律发展和司法现代化的要求角度分析,我国现有的民事检察监督制度存在一些功能和价值缺陷.     

欧洲法院的先决裁决制度

先决裁决(preliminary ruling)制度是欧洲法院(European Court of Justice,以下简称 ECJ)对欧洲联盟法律进行法律解释的重要手段,是 ECJ 与欧盟成员国国内法院建立联系与合作机制的重要途径。在先决裁决程序中,成员国法院在对特定案件做出判决之前,根据欧盟基础条约的相关规定就特定问题向 ECJ 请求做出解释性判决或有效性判决.并根据 ECJ 的先决判决对特定案     

外国直接投资最新趋势与变迁中的国际投资规则——宏观考察

国际投资的现状决定了国际投资法的发展。虽然存在由各国外资法、双边投资协定、区域投资协定、特定问题的多边投资协定组成的现有国际投资法律体系 ,但是全球化时代制定多边国际投资规则的趋势不可逆转 ,发展中国家应当主动去驾驭多边投资规则的制定。     

从斯里兰卡BOT项目看ICSID的管辖权

发展中国家利用BOT方式招标建设基础设施,是利用外国投资者的资金发展本国经济的重要途径。在此进程中,发展中国家应始终把签约的主动权牢牢掌握在自己手中,这是斯里兰卡政府在本案中胜诉的主要原因。     

多边投资担保机构的比较优势及新世纪的发展战略

20世纪 90年代以来 ,随着国际投资自由化趋势的出现 ,国际投资政治风险保险市场发生了重大变化 ,尤其是私营国际投资保险公司的异军突起 ,更是给多边投资担保机构带来了激烈的业务竞争。在知己知彼和扬长避短的基础上 ,多边投资担保机构充分利用自己的比较优势 ,提出了拓展“多边领地”的发展新战略 ,其追求的不仅仅是市场占有率 ,而且更加注重从自身的发展性宗旨出发 ,发挥对其他各类国际投资保险机构的补缺和带动作用 ,共同促进外国投资流向发展中国家。     

发展中国家参与WTO诉讼:现状与公平性问题解析

WTO争端解决机制虽然被普遍认为有效和高效,但对发展中成员参与该机制的认识却存在不同的观点,有的认为该机制对发展中国家不公平,有的研究则相反.本文从发展中国家的界定、发展中国家参与情况定量统计、对定量统计的不同角度分析和结论差异进行了探析,认为发展中国家作为整体对于WTO争端解决机制的参与是较积极的,占据了较重要的地位,发挥了相当作用,与在全球贸易中的份额也相适应,但就发展中国家数量来说,参与广泛性还有待提高,这有助于更全面和客观审视发展中国家参与WTO争端解决问题.     

我国建立刑事证据开示制度的必要性探讨

证据开示制度是英美法系当事人主义审判模式的产物,是其诉讼程序中的重要一环.在不实行卷宗材料移送以及采用控辩两方举证的诉讼模式的国家中,该项制度发挥着不容忽视的作用.从我国的立法现状、现存法律制度存在的诸多缺陷等各个角度研究,我们可以发现,我国现行的司法实践对于刑事证据开示制度的需要都是十分迫切的,在我国建立刑事证据开示制度是既符合我国现有法律规定,又符合司法实践的需要的.刑事证据开示制度的建立,有利于机制冲突的解决、有利于实体公正的实现、有利于程序公正的实现更加有利于诉讼效率的提高.     

论审前程序的律师辩护

审前程序是整个刑事诉讼的基础程序,也是目前我国刑事诉讼问题比较集中的地方,其中律师辩护的问题更加突出.本文从有效辩护的应然条件出发,分析了现行审前程序中律师辩护制度的缺陷,考察、比较了国际公约和西方主要国家律师辩护制度的状况,建议我国应该从观念、结构、信息以及律师辩护能力角度作出较为系统的改进.     

如何有效征税:来自纳税遵从实验的启发

"如何有效征税"问题普遍困扰发展中国家。现有文献多从"稽查"或"道德"角度解释纳税遵从,并相应规划税收政策,但由于发展中国家大多税收道德不高、稽查能力不足,现有理论对其帮助有限。与之不同的是,论文从纳税心理入手,通过实验方法,考察税率对人们纳税遵从以及国家税收收入的影响。结果发现:其他情况不变时,法定税率越高,纳税人逃税越多,但纳税额却越高。根据作者分析,其中关键在纳税申报时是以法定税负作为决策的参考点,逃税为纳税人带来心理收益,但后者会随收益增多而"边际满足"递减,最终表现为"税率越高,交税越多"的趋势。基于上述,论文侧重纳税决策的心理历程,为发展中国家的收入汲取问题提供了一个新的分析框架。     

政府绩效评估的法律制度构建

本文通过分析现有政府考评制度的缺陷,提出建立新的绩效评估制度并将其法治化。为建立绩效、法治的政府以适应现代行政发展的需要,笔者从行政法的角度设计并讨论了关于建立政府绩效评估法律制度的基本步骤、内容,对政府绩效评估行为的监督与审查等方面的问题。     

The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law

In this article the author assesses the proportionality principle in EU law from a legal theoretical and constitutional perspective with the aim of discovering the function of the principle. Having first discussed the implications of the proportionality principle being a general principle of law, and what function it has—namely to secure legitimacy for judicial decisions—the author suggests that there are several ways in which the principle can be interpreted. There is, nevertheless, a limit to this interpretation determined by the proposed function of the principle. In the third part of the article, the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) interpretation of the principle is assessed. The assessment clearly shows that the ECJ is interpreting the principle in different distinguishable ways. The question could, however, be raised as to whether the ECJ in some areas is interpreting the principle in a way that undermines the very function of it.     

全球化背景下国际反倾销制度合理性之反思

在全球范围内,反倾销出现了全球性的趋势,并成为一些发达国家对发展中国家进行政治经济讨价还价的工具。但反倾销制度是国际政治经济角力的结果,应该从发展中国家的视角重新定义反倾销制度,发展中国家要积极地在现有的反倾销规则和程序下谋求改革,进行抗争,争取话语权,改革不合理的部分。     

Principle of Proportionality as Principle of Economic Efficiency

The principle of proportionality is at the cornerstone of EU law, and precisely of the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the law and economics literature, the general principles of law are commonly opposed to legal rules in terms of efficiency. On the one hand, the legal formalistic approach consists of apprehending the law as principled, whereby principles of law do not and should not encompass an efficiency rationale and should be self‐sufficient. On the other hand, the legal nihilism denying the existence or relevance of the general principles of law favours legal rules that are said to incorporate an efficiency rationale. I intend to analyse the efficiency rationale of probably the most important general principles of EU law—the proportionality principle. In this paper, I shall assert that not only does the EU proportionality principle encapsulate an efficiency rationale, but most importantly, it has been interpreted by the ECJ as such—hence, I propose the representation of the principle of proportionality as a principle of economic efficiency. After having introduced the principle of proportionality (1), I shall decipher the proportionality principle both from a law and economics perspective, and from a comparative perspective (2). Then, I shall delve into the jurisprudence of the ECJ so that the judicial reasoning of the Court as this reasoning proves the relevance of the proposed representation (3). Finally, I conclude in light of the findings of this paper (4).     

The Free Movement of Goods as a Possible 'Community' Limitation on Industrial Conflict

The aim of this essay is to underline the fact that the process of achieving single market integration is very likely to influence the regulation of industrial conflict. In this perspective, the Commission v France judgment is analysed, in which the ECJ—through a combined interpretation of Article 30 (now 28) and Article 5 (now 10) of the Treaty—states that a Member State is obliged to adopt all 'appropriate measures' to remove any 'obstacles' impeding the free circulation of goods caused by private persons. A new Regulation (n. 2679/98) has followed the ECJ decision, instituting a system of notification of such obstacles arising, or the threat of them, and the right of the Commission to demand a formal reply from a State on whether it has taken, or will be taking the necessary and proportionate measures.
The analysis of the principles adopted by the ECJ and of the Regulation shows that, at Community level, pressure is exerted on States to prevent the exercise of collective action as effectively as possible, if this damages inter-State trade. A transnational limit on industrial conflict thus emerges in the Community order, which may well affect the equilibria of national industrial relations in various ways.     

The Case for a Multilateral Agreement on Competition Policy: A Developing Country Perspective

Although the issue of trade and competition policy has beendropped from the Work Programmes of the Doha Round of WorldTrade Organization (WTO) negotiations, it continues to be discussedin other fora and may return to the WTO after the completionof the Round. This article assesses the case for an agreementfrom the perspective of developing countries. It begins by reviewingthe ‘development dimension’ of the WTO debate andthen examines three specific antitrust issues that were of considerablerelevance to developing countries but were not pursued: exportcartels, anti-dumping and intellectual property rights (IPRs).There follows a critical assessment of the empirical and theoreticalarguments for the kind of agreement that was being advocatedto deal with international cartels. Alternative proposals, involvingdeveloping countries ‘outsourcing’ antitrust enforcementto developed countries, are also sceptically examined, as isthe relevance for developing countries of the kind of competitionpolicy that is currently in place in developed countries. Finally,a general approach to international trade agreements suggeststhat developing countries had nothing to gain from the proposalthat was on the table, and the article concludes by proposinga range of more suitable alternatives.     

The National Judiciary—Sword of European Court of Justice Rulings: The Example of the Kohll/Decker Jurisprudence

The role of the national judiciary in enforcing EC law, and particularly European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings, has been largely neglected by empirical legal and political science research. Existing research has categorised the role of the national judiciary as either shielding national legislation from the ECJ or as serving as a ‘sword’ to foster integration and to force change on reluctant governments. This article sides with the second assumption and attempts to empirically assess it using the example of the patient mobility jurisprudence by the ECJ, the so‐called Kohll/Decker jurisprudence. The three case studies on France, the UK and Germany show that national courts played an important role in overcoming the resistance against this jurisprudence: via a multiplication of national court cases that contradicted domestic legislation they forced the legislator to end judicial uncertainty.     

EU constitutionalisation revisited: Redressing a central assumption in European studies

The constitutionalisation of the European Union has since the early 1990s become a truism in European studies. This article revisits the constitutionalisation theory drawing on the insights from emerging historical research and new strands of political science research. We find that the conventional constitutional narrative is less convincing when confronted with the new evidence from historical and political science research. New historical research show that Member State governments, administrations and courts have generally been rather reluctant to embrace the constitutional project of the ECJ. Furthermore, at the level of European politics, the ECJ and its case law have far from judicialized European decision‐making to the extent often claimed. Concluding, we reject the notion that the ECJ has successfully constitutionalised the EU, emphasising instead the inherent tensions in the process, which continue to complicate the efficiency of European law.     

气候保护和环境正义——气候保护的国际法律框架和发展中国家的参与模式

气候保护国际法律框架的公正性是发展中国家积极参与国际气候保护合作的一个重要前提条件。"人均平等排放权"原则作为分配减排义务的原则在法律上符合正义原则。这一原则应作为评价发展中国家在未来的气候保护法律框架中应承担的义务模式的标准。     

欧盟的刑法?——以欧洲法院(ECJ)判例为视角

随着欧盟一体化的不断深入,法律一体化也被提上了议事日程,但由于刑法的特殊性,使得刑法是否被纳入欧盟法律一体化当中成为疑问,从European Court of Justice判例这一视角出发,分析欧盟法和各成员国刑法之间的互动原则,由欧盟法院对于具体个案的解决模式推演出欧盟刑法产生的可能性和可行性,并针对欧盟刑法的整合模式加以具体研究。     

The European Court of Justice and the Rhetoric of Affirmative Action

The recent Marschall decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a principle giving precedence to women for promotions in the workplace seems promising for the future of affirmative action. At first glance, this decision seems to indicate that the ECJ has taken a different path, moving away from its earlier Kalanke decision which had jeopardised further development of affirmative action in the European Union. On a closer examination, both Kalanke’s sweeping ban of preferential treatment based on gender and Marschall’s new interpretation appear as discursive replies to the same dilemma: should the Court deny the normative objective of equality contained in EC law to generate meaning, thus turning equality into a mere formal principle and rendering judicial review trivial? Or should it embrace a substantive reading of the fundamental principle of equality between men and women, thus substituting the Court judgment for that of the legislature, and subverting the limits of the ECJ’s powers? The aim of this article is to analyse the ECJ’s rhetorical response to the complexities contained in affirmative action judicial review.