论构建和谐社会与我国公民政策参与

公民政策参与是公民通过合法的途经和方式直接或间接参与和影响公共政策过程,表达和实现自身利益的最直接、最有效的政治参与形式。构建和谐社会要求拓展公民政策参与,这对于保证公共政策的公共利益价值取向具有重要的意义。而实现公民政策参与制度化、建立参与型政治文化、推行公共政策决策听证制度以及发展各种非政府团体和组织是构建和谐社会拓展我国公民政策参与的路径选择。     

法律对社会冲突的控制与和谐社会的构建

现实社会是冲突与和谐的统一体。和谐社会并不是不存在冲突,而是社会制度能够最大限度减少冲突。中国目前正处在构建社会主义和谐社会时期,需要从法律制度上对各种社会冲突进行有效控制。在立法上,建立一种服务于大多数人利益整合的制度,实现对利益的分配、保障和和谐;在司法上,做到阻止非法利益、平衡合法利益、容许法外利益,实现司法公正。     

调适利益关系是社会和谐的核心要求——和谐社会利益关系问题的政治学思考

利益矛盾和冲突不仅是社会转型期国家的显著特征,同时也是形成不受以往制度约束的和谐环境的重要前提。本文结合我国社会转型期利益分化与调整的实际,阐述和分析了调适利益关系对于实现社会和谐的重要性和必要性,进而为构建和谐社会提供必要的实践依据和理论支持。     

和谐社会视野下的民事合意制度

胡锦涛总书记指出,我们所要建设的社会主义和谐社会,是讲究民主法治、公平正义、诚信友爱、充满活力、安定有序、人与自然和谐共处的社会。和谐社会并非没有利益冲突的社会,而是各种矛盾和冲突能够被化解尤其是能够在法律体制内化解的社会。建立起畅通有效的冲突解决机制,妥善协调各方面的利益关系,是构建和谐社会的重要环节。民事合意制度的建立完善,将有助于社会纠纷解决的彻底性,提高纠纷解决的效率,从而推动和谐社会的建立。     

公共政府、法治政府与和谐社会

和谐社会是指社会系统中社会主体各要素和社会子系统紧密联系、相互融洽的一种关系模式,是各种社会关系协调、稳定和有序的社会状态。构建和谐社会,关键在于一个体现公共性的政府用社会普遍认同的公平与正义原则分配社会利益资源和协调不同利益主体之间的利益矛盾和利益冲突。但人类的政治实践表明,政府自主性易侵蚀政府的公共性,从而破坏社会秩序的稳定与和谐,故此,在现代多元社会自由秩序的背景下,法治政府便成为公共政府在制度上的逻辑延伸。法治政府限制了政府的自主性,提升了政府的公共性,实现了政府本质的现实回归,为构建和谐社会提供了基本制度保障。中国欲构建和谐社会,首先必须打造法治政府。     

积极发挥律师在化解社会矛盾中的职能作用

当前，我国正处于社会转型时期。这一时期，既是国家经济发展的黄金期，深化改革的攻坚期，又是社会矛盾的凸现期。各种社会矛盾随着制度的变革、利益格局的重新调整大量涌现。化解这些社会矛盾纠纷，除需要综合考虑制度、市场、政策等方面的因素，畅通利益表达渠道，动员社会公共管理资源外，更需要动员社会各方力量发挥职能作用，平衡各种利益关系，最终实现社会公平正义。     

公众参与地方立法与构建和谐社会

民主法治是和谐社会的一个重要特征，也是构建和谐社会的重要条件：民主得以发扬、法治得以实现，有赖于完善的立法。立法通过对社会主体权利义务的界定，以法律的形式对社会关系进行调整。立法价值取向的良恶，立法质量的高低，直接影响到和谐社会的构建。有序的、广泛的、制度化的公众参与立法，能够把各阶层的利益诉求，特别是普通民众的利益诉求充分整合到立法决策中去，使各利益群体之问的利益得以协调，矛盾得以化解，从而促进社会和谐发展。有鉴于此．     

以人为本构建和谐公证处

新的历史时期,和谐社会的基本构成是和谐个体和和谐组织。坚持以人为本,尊重人的发展规律和客观诉求,加强制度建设、提高公证员队伍的素质,构建和谐文化,对于提升执法公信力、维护执法形象,防范和化解当前各种矛盾,建设和谐社会都有重要意义。     

浅谈完善民众利益诉讼表达机制

检察机关作为国家的司法部门,要在化解社会矛盾、构建社会主义和谐社会的大潮中发挥其应有的作用。本文指出结合中央政法委提出在全国政法机关推行＂三项重点＂这一工作要求,检察机关应积极探索群众诉求的合法表达机制,切实保障人民群众的合法诉求的实现,积极化解社会矛盾,促进社会的和谐稳定。     

公证：构建和谐社会的重要力量

公证作为构建和谐社会的一支重要力量,应当在合法、据实、合理地调节公民、法人和各种社会组织之间的利益分配和利益矛盾中,起到事前预防和事中证明的作用,同时也能够在事后为公民依法解决问题提供真实、合法的证据,但是在深化公证服务的过程中,有两点值得特别注意.一个是公证必须体现法治、公平与诚信,另一个是公证必须要面向基层、深入公众.     

正当利益条款的中国法构造——基于《民法典》第998条

正当利益条款为纷繁复杂的价值及利益冲突留下必要的缓和空间,这对数字经济的发展尤为重要。通过构建"抖音案"的请求权规范链条可以发现,《民法典》及《个人信息保护法》关于个人信息处理行为的合法性基础的直接规定难以容纳个体性商业利益,有必要确立正当利益条款。作为对侵害非物质性人格权责任认定的一般规定,《民法典》第998条与正当利益条款在功能上具有一致性,而且在内容上互为补充,由此即可形成我国的正当利益条款。落实到个案裁判,应区分价值及利益冲突与具体考量因素两个层次,并注重二者之间的密切联系,通过权衡方法达致更为合乎理性的结论。借此,不仅能重构和修正"抖音案"的裁判理由,而且能完整呈现正当利益条款的中国法构造。     

On State, Identity and Rights: Putting Identity First

The paper considers the nature of the state understood as the political unity articulated on the basis of a collective identity which provides the state with its capacity to make decisions. The foremost decision of the state to protect and defend this identity is the source of its authority to enforce laws. Collective identity thus represents an object of special interest, unlike both ??political?? interests (Millian other-regarding acts) and private interests (Millian self-regarding acts). The validation of laws through this special interest is a necessary condition for both of these latter kinds of interests to materialize. Hence, unlike the Millian thesis of two different kinds of interests (self- and other-regarding), here we take that there are three types or spheres of interests. Any conception of rights, then, will cover a subset of interests found in the domains of all of those three types of interests: in the domain of political interest the issue concerns selection among competing sets of legitimate interests, within the domain of private interests the point is to discern those that will be protected by law, while the third type of interests, the object of which is a unique collective identity and its defining specificity, represents an overarching interest that is embedded in any legitimate collective concern. In this scheme, well-suited for democratic theory, the majority/minority discourse is a matter of distinguishing which particular set of legitimate interests is chosen to be dominant (e.g., which political party is in power) and which ones are waiting for the opportunity to achieve their transformation from minority (opposition) to majority (i. e. government). If, however, there is no well-defined collective identity, minorities acquire a new meaning. Rather than being possible future majorities, they form a nucleus of competing collective identities with, sometimes hopeless but still alive, aspirations to sovereignty. Thus they become sources of likely conflicts that may go well beyond political controversies.     

Culling the cousins: Kingship,kinship, and competition in mid-millennial England

Kin selection, an aspect of evolutionary theory, argues that, all else equal, individuals should give preferential treatment to relatives, based on the degree of relatedness [Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I, II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.]. However, one may observe instances where competition for scarce or unique resources is stronger between family members than between unrelated individuals. Such a situation existed between 1377 and 1603 with intense competition for the throne of England among descendents of Edward III. During this period, monarchs were executed by relatives to gain or maintain the throne for him or herself or descendents. Despite the widespread destruction of kindred, we show that executioners never sacrificed lineal relatives nor executed collateral relatives in excess of their own legitimate nuclear relatedness, and the number of executed relatives was positively correlated to the age and legitimate reproductive success of the executioner. Moreover, when resources are scarce, have an intrinsically high value, and are inherited, it may be in your Darwinian reproductive interest not to maximize but to minimize the number of legitimate children in order to reduce competition among family members.     

Culling the cousins: Kingship,kinship, and competition in mid-millennial England

Kin selection, an aspect of evolutionary theory, argues that, all else equal, individuals should give preferential treatment to relatives, based on the degree of relatedness [Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I, II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.]. However, one may observe instances where competition for scarce or unique resources is stronger between family members than between unrelated individuals. Such a situation existed between 1377 and 1603 with intense competition for the throne of England among descendents of Edward III. During this period, monarchs were executed by relatives to gain or maintain the throne for him or herself or descendents. Despite the widespread destruction of kindred, we show that executioners never sacrificed lineal relatives nor executed collateral relatives in excess of their own legitimate nuclear relatedness, and the number of executed relatives was positively correlated to the age and legitimate reproductive success of the executioner. Moreover, when resources are scarce, have an intrinsically high value, and are inherited, it may be in your Darwinian reproductive interest not to maximize but to minimize the number of legitimate children in order to reduce competition among family members.     

改革成果分享依据研究——社会受益权视角的解析

财富的生产是有规律的,但财富的分配却主要是制度安排的结果,这就是社会受益权——一项新的法律权利——提出的核心理据。社会财富的分配依据有一个历史的嬗变进程,而传统的分配依据与公平分享改革成果之间存在着巨大的张力。现行的分配格局是我国以往分配法律制度安排的结果,修正这种分配格局必须有正当的理据。惟有突破现有的思维模式,对分配依据进行法律限度的拓展,并以社会受益权的型构为契机,以权利的介涉为进路,才能建立起人民共享改革成果的长效机制。     

婚生否认之诉原告资格的立法完善和规范适用

对于婚生否认之诉的原告,目前我国法采取了明确列举的方式,所规定的原告范围较窄。当其他可能的原告起诉时,法院或严格适用法律规范,或扩大原告范围,产生了矛盾裁判。立法应当对能够成立诉权并启动司法审判的适格原告作出周全选择和判断。基于身份权的专属性及国家意欲保护的权利和价值,亲子关系的主体,即父母、子女均有婚生否认之诉原告资格;生父仅在婚生亲子关系不利于子女最佳利益或损害公共利益时,才附条件地具有婚生否认之诉原告资格;父死亡后的继承人因无专属身份关系以及身份公益优位于财产私益的法理,不具有婚生否认之诉原告资格。在立法作出周全选择后,司法实践应当准确把握婚生否认之诉属于形成之诉的本质及立法的文义和目的,遵循形成之诉原告的法定性和封闭性,不得扩大原告范围。     

论侵害宗教财产目的性使用之法律救济——以寺院为主要景点设立风景名胜区牟利的行为为视角

通过以知名寺院为主要景点,隔绝或阻断通往知名寺院的道路,设立风景名胜区,以谋取经济利益的行为,本质上属于侵权行为,既侵害了僧众作为相邻关系主体所享有的相邻权,也侵害了信众和游客对寺院所提供的自由使用宗教财产的合法利益。对此种利益应当纳入《侵权责任法》上＂合法的民事权益＂的概念给予救济。风景名胜区应当无条件地为包括僧众、信众和游客在内的整个寺院宗教财产使用者群体,提供无偿地自由地接近和进出寺院的通行便利,以此保障该群体所享有的宗教性物质利益（僧众）、宗教性精神利益（僧众、信众）和一般性精神利益（游客）。     

The contribution of EU public procurement law to corporate social responsibility

This article argues that while EU public procurement law increasingly allows public authorities to take environmental and social considerations into account in public purchasing decisions, it does impose limits on the possibility for authorities to incentivise corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies through public procurement. These specific limits are the result of the EU legislator's choice to endorse the Court of Justice's ordoliberal approach to public procurement law. This approach is in tension with EU CSR policy, and more broadly, the EU's non‐economic goals such as environmental protection, the fight against climate change, human rights and social policy. It reflects a normative preference for the right of undertakings to compete for a tender over the freedom of government authorities to choose a supplier on public interest grounds even if these choices are based exclusively on a legitimate public interest and should be reconsidered.     

The White & Carter Principle: A Restatement

This article reviews the English courts' approach to the controversial decision in White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor and suggests a systematic reformulation of the principle to be derived from that case. It argues that the notion of ‘legitimate interest’, at the core of that principle, suffers from severe obscurity as it stands. The critical issue in White & Carter is whether the wastefulness of a party's continuing performance outweighs its performance interest in earning the contract price. Three tests currently employed to determine the existence of a ‘legitimate interest’, namely, the adequacy of damages, the duty to mitigate and the concept of wholly unreasonable, are assessed and dismissed as either misdirecting or unsatisfactory in other ways. Finally, it articulates a new test based on a reappraisal of existing case law and summarises the key reasons for the courts to exercise their equitable jurisdiction against wasteful performance.     

创新维护群众权益机制的路径探寻

随着改革开放的日益深入和市场经济的不断发展,人民群众的物质文化需要不断增长,相伴产生的是社会各阶层利益冲突加剧,其影响了民众正常的生产生活,破坏了社会的稳定。因此,要准确把握维护群众权益的新内容,加强和完善党和政府主导的维护群众权益机制,形成科学有效的利益协调机制、诉求表达机制、矛盾调处机制和权益保障机制,切实维护群众的合法权益,推动和谐社会建设。