公司权力监督与制约的理论分析

公司三权分立的结果是权虽分、监督权却未能立,股东大会形式化,执行权力高度膨胀.这种权力制而不衡的现状导致大股东中心主义和董事会中心主义大行其道,股东利益尤其是中小股东利益岌岌可危,公司治理的核心变成了对大股东和经营者的治理.如何有效地制约和监督公司权力,归根到底就是能否对大股东、董事及高管人员实行有效的监控,这是关系公司治理绩效和公司存亡的重要问题.     

论构建公司治理结构的原则

公司治理结构的核心问题是公司治理权力的来源、分配和制衡。构建公司治理结构应当遵循权力多源原则、权力平衡原则和分权制衡原则。     

股份公司权力中心的定位

股份公司权力中心的定位是公司法人治理结构的主要问题与核心问题。法人治理结构的合理与否将直接关系到公司能否健康、有效率地运作,因此公司权力中心的科学定位,是问题的关键所在。本文拟通过剖析我国现行立法对权力中心的定位及实际的实施情况,提出现阶段我国的公司立法应以董事会为公司权力中心,以此构造公司治理结构,促进公司更规范更健康更有效地运营。     

我国中央与地方权力配置基本理论探究——以对权力属性的分析为起点

在我国这样的单一制国家,地方权力的行使也不可避免,但在地方权力行使的同时我们对这种权力的属性却没能进行深入的研究,这使得地方与中央的权力关系很难理清,进而我们现在所进行的中央与地方的权力配置就具有某种盲目性。在我国,地方权力与中央权力一样都是在统治权力的权属与权能分离过程中治理权力行使的体现,只是两者的分工不同而已。为了使人民更好地行使统治权力,必须合理地配置中央与地方的权力。这种权力配置在静态上要求职权法定;同时,由于权力在行使过程中所表现出来的差异性,这种权力配置还要求动态的权能配置的法治化和权力行使的正当化。因此,我国中央与地方权力配置的应然状态就是通过静态的权限划分和动态的权能配置实现权力行使所指向的特定目的,而不至于陷入实用主义的泥沼。     

论我国权力配置的完善

针对当前我国权力配置存在的三大方面问题,必须从根本上提出党政权力配置、中央与地方权力配置及横向权力配置的完善措施,具体需通过立法完善推动实践操作的完善,如公开权力配置,加强权力配置的合理实施等。     

行政诉讼证据制度中人民法院权力解析

人民法院行政诉讼权力配置可分为法定意义上的权力配置和实践意义上的权力配置。人民法院在行政诉讼证据制度中权力结构的最初型态表现为:自治权力、准许权和责令权、认定权、证据调取决定权、委托权和纠正权。行政诉讼证据制度中人民法院的权力结构要素是:人民法院,行政诉讼的证据,证据权力的运用,行政诉讼当事人和证据事项。人民法院在行政诉讼证据制度中的权力表明:行政诉讼构造模式仍以职权主义为主导,人民法院是以平衡和调节当事人在行政诉讼证据制度中的能力和机会来实现行政诉讼证据制度的目的的。     

法学视角下高校治理结构中的权力构成与规范

高校治理结构的核心是多元化权力的合理配置与有效运行。我国目前高校治理内外部结构中的权力构成具有相应的法律来源，但需要进行权力规范，通过立法明确政府与高校的权力界限，建立大学章程，明确权力分配，赋予民主参与权和监督权，从而实现对权力的配置与制约。     

权力腐败的危害和惩治对策

我国处于社会转型时期，由于社会控制力减弱、权力配置不当、权力制约不利和行政主体对个人利益的追求导致腐败现象丛生，这将严重影响政府改革、政府效能和社会风气的发展，因此，必须通过对权力的合理配置、加强对权力的制约和监督，以控制和减少腐败现象的发生。     

股份公司内部权力配置的结构性变革——以股东“同质化”假定到“异质化”现实的演进为视角

传统公司代理理论与制度基于股东"同质化"假定的逻辑基础而展开,"资合性"正是对这一基础的法理化表达。股东"同质化"假定具有人性同质与利益同质之内涵,建构其上的股份公司内部权力配置以资本作为唯一标准,形成了权力定位中的股东会中心主义、权力分配中的股份平等原则和权力运行中的资本多数决原则。但这些权力配置原则所产生的诸多流弊已然昭示出其逻辑基础存在先天缺陷。股份公司股东"异质化"现实已经得到公司理论和实践的有力佐证,并不断催生出股份公司内部权力配置的结构性变革。     

国家权力纵向配置的法治化路径——评任广浩著《当代中国国家权力纵向配置问题研究》

正自人类社会产生政治国家后,中央与地方的纵向权力关系始终是一个国家政治制度的核心问题,它关系到国家的统一、民族的团结、经济的发展和社会的稳定。中国非制度化、不稳定的纵向权力关系,形成了"一放就乱,一乱就统,一统就死"的怪圈,长期困扰着国家治理。因此,国家权力的纵向配置问题,是中国共产党的历代领导集体始终关注的一个重大问题。如何形成权界清晰、分工合理、运转有效的纵向权力配     

中国法治进程中的法律资源分享问题

法律资源分享状况体现着社会成员在推行法治过程中的生存状态。我国法律资源的配置与分享存在着失衡现象。政治权力、物质财富以及其他社会势力以不同的方式并在不同程度上影响和趋导着法律资源的配置。由此不仅放大了社会分化的负面效应,对法治的核心价值也有一定的损伤。为此,我国推行法治的重心应从创造法律资源转向公平、合理地配置法律资源,并通过调整相关的权力关系,以及为部分弱势社会成员运用法律资源提供更多的便利等措施,完善我国法律资源配置与分享机制。     

论检察权的配置重点和方向

优化司法职权配置,首先要明确人民代表大会制度下检察权的属性及检察权优化配置的基本原则。在此基础上,按照公正高效和有利于监督制约的要求,通过检察机关内部的机构调整和职权配置,整合现有资源,更有效地行使法律赋予的职权。     

Influence and Issues in the Legal Community: The Role of a Legal Elite

This article is the third and last in a series that has focused on the corporate actor elite of Chicago's legal community—those attorneys who practice law with and for the major business, social, civic, cultural, and charitable organizations in the city. In this paper, the focus is on the participation of the members of that elite in a series of issues that have arisen in both the legal community and the larger society in the recent past.
The article first examines the resources for collective decision making which the members of the corporate actor legal elite bring to the process of community issue resolution. It then examines in detail elite issue preferences and the patterns of elite participation in five professional and political issues. From this analysis an interesting "paradox of power" emerges: the elite is most successful on those issues in which it is least interested and active and least successful on those which most heavily attract its participation. The article concludes with a discussion of the reason for this paradox, basing its answer in larger sociological theories of the activation of different types of resources in different types of community conflict.     

土地开发增值收益分配制度的法理基础

土地开发权的性质是公权力,其基本内容是土地用途管制和规划管理,土地开发权决定土地资源的初始配置,它是土地资源市场配置的基础。土地利用的公法调整是私法调整的基础。土地开发权是产生土地开发增值收益的决定因素,这是构建和完善土地开发增值收益分配制度的法理基础。国家应当以土地管理者身份参与土地开发增值收益的初次分配和二次分配,以实现土地开发增值收益社会分享的政策目标。作为土地所有权人的国家和集体以及其他民事权利主体,依据民事权利参与土地开发增值收益的初次分配。     

论欧盟并购控制法的权力分配机制

欧盟作为世界上最为成功的区域性国际组织,在处理欧盟与成员国关系方面取得了创造性的成就.在并购控制领域,欧盟通过一系列法律制度,确立了明确、透明、灵活的权力分配机制.阐述欧盟并购控制的权力分配原则及分配标准,进而介绍并购控制的移送管辖制度,最后对新并购条例管辖权分配机制运行状况进行评价.     

论公民权利对行政调查权的制约

由于行政调查权的广泛性、多样性和程序性等特点,使得传统的、以权力制约权力的控权机制不足以对其实行有效控制,因此,有必要辅以权利制约机制。本文试图探讨通过合理配置公民的实体权利和程序权利,以实现对行政调查权全方位、多角度的有效制约。     

Access and allocation in food governance,a decadal view 2008–2018

Achieving food security worldwide raises a number of issues with regard to the distribution of global resources. On the one hand, access to resources and ecospace is essential for individuals in order to survive; on the other hand, the allocation of the earth’s resources as well as risks and responsibilities are relevant for the global community. Yet, elements of access and allocation are various and complex, encompassing social, environmental, and economic dimensions in an increasingly fragmented global governance structure. Drawing on the multidisciplinary governance framework on access and allocation by Gupta and Lebel, this paper provides a synoptical review of the literature on food security of the past decade from the perspective of the earth system governance scholarship. This article addresses the question: what have we learnt about access and allocation issues in the area of food governance and its implications for food security? In addressing this question, this review examines how institutions, norms and power affect access to and allocation of resources. The paper draws out key trends and lessons from the literature to conclude that research needs to be sensitive to the complexity and intersectionality of food, the systemic challenges that it poses, and the broader political economy around it.

     

Staging Power: Marx, Hobbes and the Personification of Capital

This article raises questions about the nature and status of the persona behind which contemporary capital operates. It does so by developing Marx's comments on personification in a very different direction to that intended by him, taking them, via Hobbes, into the deeper recesses of company law. The argument that develops is that modern law has facilitated the mechanism by which capital dominates civil society, an argument illustrated through the veil of the corporate persona worn by capital. The rhetorical trope around which the argument is organized is the stage of power; the barely-mentioned backdrop is the possibility of real resistance to corporate power; the broader intention is to help develop the Marxist theory of law. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

股东会、董事会职权的兜底条款质疑

规定股东会职权的《公司法》第38条和规定董事会职权的第47条分别有一个概括性的规定：“公司章程规定的其他职权”,这种条款一般被称为兜底条款。这是2005年公司法修改的时候新增加的条款,立法者试图通过强化章程自治解决股东会和董事会职权规定不清的问题。然而,事与愿违,兜底条款不能全部实现立法的目的,甚至还由此产生了新的问题,即在章程没有规定时,无法判断有些事项究竞是股东会的职权还是董事会的职权。同时在股东会职权规定条款和董事会职权规定条款增加兜底条款实际上是不了解股东会和董事会功能定位所致,因此需要先对兜底条款作无害化解释,在下次公司法修改时删除。     

Water resources data and information exchange in transboundary water treaties

Despite international calls for data and information sharing in transboundary waters and basin-specific evidence of its importance to cooperative management, no systematic research has been undertaken to answer questions of where, how frequently, and which water resources data and information are exchanged. This paper examines all available transboundary water agreements signed between 1900 and 2007 to determine the degree to which water resources data and information is exchanged in the world??s regions, how the level of exchange has developed over time, and the different ways in which data and information sharing has been codified in practice. In doing so, we reveal important trends regarding the mechanisms, types, and frequencies of water resources data and information sharing??as well as differences across temporal and spatial scales, by treaty type and function, and regime type. The results indicate that data and information exchange as already practiced is more nuanced and, in some senses, widespread than may commonly be recognized. Further, the results reveal key linkages between democracy and data and information exchange and provide a basis to test analogous linkages related to data sharing and other variables in transboundary water settings.