我国公益诉讼的起诉主体研究

随着我国经济和社会的发展,在我国建立公益诉讼制度是十分必要的。但是,要在我国建立公益诉讼制度,需要解决许多问题。其中,如何确立公益诉讼起诉主体的范围是最为重要的问题,它对确立公益诉讼制度的其他内容具有决定性影响。各国确立公益诉讼起诉主体的理论基础有信托理论、"私人总检察长"理论和监督制约理论。虽然目前我国法学界对公益诉讼起诉主体的范围存在不同的观点,但是,为了确实有效地保护公共利益,我们可以借鉴上述理论基础,将检察机关、行政机关、公益性团体、行业协会和其他社会组织、公民个人确立为公益诉讼的起诉主体。     

尊重个人利益是衡量制度设计是否科学的关键

曼德维尔在<蜜蜂的寓言>中提出了"私人恶德即公共利益"的思想,他通过寓言得出结论:国家的繁荣和人民的普遍幸福,只有顺应人的利己本性才能得到实现.因此,在进行制度设计时必须充分认识和评价个人利益的积极作用.就公私两种行为而言,制度是针对人的利己主义行为的,尊重个人利益是衡量制度设计是否科学的关键.制度的主要功能是调动人的积极性,而要做到这些就必须解决"个人利益"与"公共利益"之间的关系,即如何能够使人人像关心个人利益一样关心公共利益,这就是私利公益问题.制度设计的目标是实现私利公益,而只有建立在尊重个人利益基础上的制度设计才能实现社会公益的目标.     

Legal Aid in the Eye of a Storm: Rationing, Contracting, and a New Institutionalism

This article discusses possible rationales underlying a legal aid system through an articulation of theories of distribution in the legal services market, considers the idea of prioritization and planning or, in the political vernacular, rationing of public funding, and addresses the impact of economic and social theories of the professions on legal aid structures. Finally, the emerging concepts of 'new-institutionalism' and 'new public management' are introduced to indicate the organizational and sociological complexity of reforming the legal services market. Each of these threads illustrate competing values and institutional influence on publicly funded legal services. Bureaucratic rules mix with professional and economic incentives to articulate entitlement to public money in a predominantly private forum. Drawing on research in the field of rationing health care, sociological and economic work on legal services, and organizational theories, it will be demonstrated that conceptual, policy, and research tools need to play closer attention to this competition of values.     

论建立公益诉讼制度的必要性和可行性

随着我国民主和法制的发展,在我国现行民事诉讼和行政诉讼制度的基础上,建立公益诉讼制度作为必要的补充,不仅具有客观必要性,而且具有现实可行性。一方面,在我国建立公益诉讼制度,是维护国家利益和社会公共利益的客观需要,是完善我国诉讼制度和法律监督制度的必然要求,也是与国际交流的客观需要。另一方面,在我国建立公益诉讼制度,有我国检察机关多年来的民、行案件抗诉经验可供借鉴,检察机关近年来的公益诉讼实践经验可供总结,国外的立法和司法实践可供参考。     

从“康菲事件”看检察机关开展环境公益诉讼

随着社会的发展,司法的完善,检察机关民事行政检察部门被赋予一种特殊的公诉权———民事公益诉权,环境公益权诉讼就是其中的一种。检察机关充分发挥民事行政检察的职能作用,积极开展环境公益诉讼,对于维护公民合法权益意义重大。     

Theorizing continuity and change in socialist regulation

How does regulation change in authoritarian polities that tightly control public discourse and social mobilization? Socio-legal theories assume that regulation changes through intersubjective dialogical exchanges that persuade regulators to alter how they perceive social problems and the appropriate regulatory responses. Although this framework captures regulatory change in transparent dialogical spaces, it misses much of the regulatory story in the opaque discursive processes that order authoritarian polities. This article turns to sociological institutional theory—a non-dialogical theory to understand regulatory change in Vietnam's authoritarian polity. It investigates how commercial regulation in Vietnam has responded to an emerging mixed-market economy, at the same time the state has suppressed public dialogical challenges to socialist ideology. It concludes that regulatory change occurs when regulators respond to economic and social crises and layer new ideational components onto old programmatic ideas, converting them to new uses.     

环境公益诉讼的性质识别、原告寻找与审理机关专门化

环境公益诉讼因缺乏有力立法支撑,处于一种司法实践先于立法的混乱局面。从对2007年1012年国内公开报道的30起环境公益诉讼案件的司法裁判文书进行实证研究发现：环境公益诉讼无论诉讼目的还是救济方式均不同于传统诉讼,它是在原有诉讼体系上“重生”的一种新型诉讼;为实现维护环境公益的目的,这样一种新型诉讼的原告资格应赋予公民个人、环保团体、环境行政机关及检察机关,并且应由专门审判机关进行审理。     

检察机关食品公益诉讼探讨

2011年《民事诉讼法(修改稿)》草案审议时,许多学者提出了食品公益诉讼的概念,使公益诉讼再次成为热议的焦点。就司法实务而言,重要的不是讨论食品公益诉讼的必要性和可行性,而是探究食品安全公共利益在法律上的具体诉求,以及如何满足其诉求。本文以检察机关提起食品公益诉讼为例,借用经济学上外部性理论,从公益诉讼的保护对象入手,分析食品公益诉讼的客体及其请求权基础,并结合诉讼法的基本命题,论证食品公益诉讼的诉讼请求、损失的计算以及举证责任等问题,进而划分公益诉讼与行政权、私权在诉讼法上的衔接界线。     

Destructive Competition or Competition Destroyed? Regulatory Theory and the History of Irish Road Transportation Legislation

The principal aim of our study is to contribute to the debate over whether regulation is enacted in the interest of consumers, producers, political agents, or some combination of these. We examine the legislative debates and subsequent regulatory bills surrounding road transportation regulation in Ireland in light of the three dominant theories which purport to explain the existence of regulation: the public interest theory and the so-called Chicago and Virginia theories. A unique feature of our study is an attempt to integrate specific rhetorical concepts used in the public policy debates into the theoretical analysis of regulation. One noteworthy conclusion of our study is that theories of economic processes affect the shaping and results of public policy.     

Constitutional Pluralism and the Question of the European Common Good

Constitutional pluralism seems to be one of the most inspiring theories of European constitutionalism. It can account for the multilayered institutional framework of the Union. Therefore, it is a natural candidate for explaining how to track the European public interest. Pluralism may serve as the best methodology for keeping into account and for respecting the multiple perspectives on the common good represented by every institutional layer of the Union. After having examined the theories of two of the most influential authors of constitutional pluralism, Mattias Kumm and Miguel Maduro, this essay tries to show how pluralism might improve its highly potential explanatory and normative force, that is, by including in the institutional picture not only courts but also political institutions. In this way, the constitutional dialogue between the European and the national layers would be enriched, and every European and national voice might have a say in the interactions between institutions, securing a fairer way of tracking the European common good.     

政府权力市场化的经济法规制

政府是经济发展和社会运行的调控者和参与者。政府权力的行使是实现民生和发展目标的重要路径,但存在自利属性和权力市场化倾向,主要表现为投资行为的越位、经济角色的错位、公共产品供给的缺位。这些问题产生的主要根源是制度供给不力或不足,使政府较容易利用掌握的公共行政权力谋取利益。经济法因其法益目标和干预手段的特殊性,天然地具有对权力行为进行调适的能力。故而,在考量和整合多重利益范畴的基础上,构建完善的经济法规制策略,是克服政府权力市场化的可行路径。     

民事公益之基本类型与程序路径

民事诉讼所要承载之"公益"价值目标可一分为二:"集合性公益"与"纯粹性公益"。基于其间的本质差异,承载二者的制度逻辑和程序原理必须有所区别。传统的"群体性诉讼"制度,如代表人诉讼、选定当事人诉讼、集团诉讼、示范性诉讼(亦称实验性诉讼)等,足以承载"集合性公益"之救济需求。"纯粹性公益"之价值目标,则必须由"公益侵害阻断程序"加以承载。我国新《民事诉讼法》第55条所要建立的民事公益诉讼制度是以德国为代表的"团体诉讼"(verbandsklage)制度为模本的。该项制度在一定程度上开始突破传统民事诉讼之私益属性原理,在广义上属于公益侵害阻断程序的范畴,其制度功能处于"集合性公益"与"纯粹性公益"的临界点上。     

公益诉讼社会功能论

公益诉讼的社会功能，决定了它能否成功实现制度的变迁、达致制度良好运作的总体成效。相较于以调整个人之间利害冲突为基本对象的传统民事诉讼，公益诉讼不仅具有纠纷解决、实体权利保护、不当行为纠正等基本的诉讼功能，而且基于其特有的目标、结构和运行机制，还具有形成社会公共政策、创设或扩展权利、制约公权以及促进社会变革这四大特殊功能。     

公共利益实现困境中的程序纠偏——以土地征收拆迁为例

公共利益在实现过程中面临诸多困境。尤其是在我国城市化进程中，公共利益的异化、虚化和泛化现象严重，个人利益和政府利益也经常假借、冒用公共利益。程序规范是突破公共利益困境的重要途径，也是公共利益实现的应有之义。我国目前的制度安排和法律实践中忽视了程序规则。公共利益的程序规则包括公开透明的公共利益调查程序、民主科学的公共利益决定程序、公正公平的公共利益审查程序。程序规则并非绝对完美无瑕，不能将公共利益的程序正义绝对化。     

Negotiated Third Party Access—An Industrial Organisation Perspective

In the course of the liberalization of European energy markets, the German government opted—diverging from all other European countries—for Negotiated Third-Party Access. In this article we analyze if, theoretically, this institutional regime can be superior to regulation. We review empirically whether certain aspects of the actual implementation, in particular publication of the network access charges for each network supplier, facilitated or inhibited competition. In the first place we reconsider previous research, showing that NTPA can—under certain conditions—be economically effective. Our empirical analysis shows that the duty of publishing access charges supported market transparency and imposed a regulatory threat, particularly to suppliers with significantly above-average charges. On the other hand observable price adjustments over time serve as an indicator of tacit collusion. Although the expensive suppliers cut their prices, the cheaper ones raised theirs.We thank Maik Heinemann, Joachim Wagner and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and the Lower Saxonian Ministry of Science and Culture for financial support.JEL Classification: D42, L43, L94     

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research: Views of Institutional Review Boards, Conflict of Interest Committees, and Investigators

Strategies for disclosing investigators' financial interests to potential research participants have been adopted by many research institutions. However, little is known about how decisions are made regarding disclosures of financial interests to potential research participants, including what is disclosed and the rationale for making these determinations. We sought to understand the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of institutional review board chairs, conflict of interest committee chairs, and investigators regarding disclosure of financial interests to potential research participants. Several themes emerged, including general attitudes toward conflicts of interest, circumstances in which financial interests should be disclosed, rationales and benefits of disclosure, what should be disclosed, negative effects of and barriers to disclosure, and timing and presentation of disclosure. Respondents cited several rationales for disclosure, including enabling informed decision making, promoting trust in researchers and research institutions, and reducing legal liability. There was general agreement that disclosure should happen early in the consent process. Respondents disagreed about whether to disclose the amounts of particular financial interests. Clarifying the goals of disclosure and understanding how potential research participants use the information will be critical in efforts to ensure the integrity of clinical research and to protect the rights and interests of participants.     

论民行检察与公益诉讼的耦合性

公益诉讼理论为维护公共利益提供了一种新模式,需要在既有制度体系中寻求合理衔接和耦合。民行检察制度作为检察监督权的表现形式,具有维护公益的制度功能。公益诉讼和民行检察在价值目标、案件性质、案件范围、启动方式、司法规制上具有内在的藕合性,这种藕合性分析有可能为两种制度的完善和实践提供新的视角。     

International regimes and environmental policy integration: introducing the special issue

Pressure is mounting for states to become better at integrating its environmental policies into sector policy, a challenge often referred to as environmental policy integration (EPI). Policy research on EPI has grown to become a distinct and substantial field of study at the national and EU levels, where political commitment and interest in the topic have been large. In the study of international regimes, EPI analytical concepts have so far not been applied although the EPI quest is at least as important and critical at this level. This special issue addresses this gap, by combining these two sets of literature and examining various aspects of EPI in international regimes, its manifestations and its challenges. This introductory paper introduces key conceptual discussions underlying the development of this special issue, distils and discusses some of the key findings and messages from the four ensuing research articles and presents directions for future research. It finds that many EPI challenges and institutional barriers are strongly accentuated at international levels of governance, but also that similarities with the national level suggest that closer interactions between the two fields of study are warranted. At both levels, the EPI “game” is full of inherent tensions and goal conflicts, institutional constraints abound, and cognitive interactions and learning processes appear as key mechanisms to advance EPI. Suggestions for how to enhance EPI in international regimes are still tentative, and analysis beyond international relations and regime theory is needed to capture potential institutional innovations for advancing EPI.     

论名誉权诉讼中的公共利益原则——基于对公众人物理论的反思

肇始于美国的公众人物理论对英美法系国家的诽谤法和大陆法系国家的名誉权法制都产生了不同程度的影响,但国内外学术界对这一理论的看法仍莫衷一是。我国司法实务界积极在审判实践中将公众人物理论作为涉公共言论名誉权案件的裁判依据,但司法实践的适用与公众人物理论和真实恶意原则的本意发生了很大偏移。因此,应通过案例指导制度确立名誉权诉讼中的公共利益原则以取代公众人物理论,将主观因素和客观因素相结合确定公共利益的具体内涵。在具体适用规则上,应确立具有公共利益属性的公共言论的真实抗辩事由,涉公共利益名誉权纠纷应采故意或重大过失的归责原则,同时减轻公民和媒体在涉公共利益名誉权纠纷中的举证责任。