利益集团参与立法

利益集团参与立法,推动了立法图景的变化。在法案的起草和修订过程中,利益集团已经成为一种稳定的重要的参与形式。利益集团通过多种渠道参与立法,其参与带有中国社会转型时期的特征,与西方社会利益集团有很大区别。从当前阶段看来,利益集团参与立法大体上有助于推进立法的民主化和法治秩序的形成,但是也应看到所引发的复杂后果,其往往蕴涵着积极与消极的因素。对于利益集团参与立法的发展趋势来说,恰当的制度建设至关重要。     

Lobbying Across Arenas: Interest Group Involvement in the Legislative Process in Denmark

Interest groups may approach political decision makers in two phases of the legislative process: the pre‐parliamentary, administrative phase, in which bills are prepared by bureaucrats; and the parliamentary phase, in which bills are discussed and possibly revised by parliamentary committees. The article investigates the factors that lead groups to engage in these phases based on group proceedings for 225 bills presented to the Danish parliament in the 2009/2010 session. We conclude that resourceful groups are clearly more active in both arenas, but the parliamentary arena is also a venue for voicing discontent and defending gains achieved in the administrative arena.     

公益行政诉讼模式的理论分析与制度化建议

公益行政诉讼模式可分为公诉模式与私诉模式.公诉模式包括检察机关作为起诉人的典型公诉模式和特定公益性社会组织作为起诉人的未来公诉模式.检察机关的典型公诉模式为现阶段实际可行形态.在检察行政公益诉讼中,检察机关处于“行政公诉人”地位,依法行使有关监督和诉讼职权.私诉模式包括公民提起的典型私诉模式和经依法登记的社会组织提起的...     

Legislative Efficiency and Political Inclusiveness: The Effect of Procedures on Interest Group Mobilization in the European Parliament

This paper contributes to discussions surrounding interest group representation in the European Parliament. Drawing from conceptualizations of legitimacy, and theoretical work on information-access we argue that different procedures bestow a different type of authority to parliamentary committees affecting their legitimacy orientation, in turn impacting the balance between private and public interests mobilised. We assess a population of 10,000 accredited lobbyists, and the procedural output across the 7th legislature’s committees (2009–2014). Our analysis indicates that committees with a higher ratio of Ordinary Legislative Procedures to Own Initiative Reports see greater private interest mobilisation. Conversely, in committees where the procedures’ ratios are inverse we observe greater public interest mobilisation. Theoretically, we provide a novel approach for framing the committee’s nature from a procedural perspective, bridging discussions on interest group mobilisation and the democratic deficit. Empirically, the results overturn the premise of business dominance across the institution’s committees through a unique dataset.     

The Role of Interest Groups in the European Union Decision-Making Process

Most of the economic models that analyse the behaviour of interest groups in the policy making process uphold the idea that there are many organized groups that compete, with the aim of achieving their individual goals. The adoption of decisions is the result of a complex system of strategic interactions, and since different groups have different resources at their disposal this makes it easier for one or more groups to influence whether or not a policy is adopted. This research demonstrates that an institutional system such as the European Union (EU) should be able to protect us from the potential manipulation, which accompanies these channels of influence.     

当代中国利益集团多元利益立法表达的问题及对策

改革开放30年,随着社会主义市场经济不断的探索发展和政治体制改革的不断推进,我国利益集团也逐渐浮出水面。利益集团通过多种渠道对立法和政策施加影响。目前我国利益集团的发展存在着利益集团法律地位不明确,立法表达途径不畅通,立法表达环境不佳、不当影响或俘获政府等问题,对此我国应采取有针对性的法律措施予以规制,以趋利避害,促进民主法制发展。     

Interest Groups in the Israeli High Court of Justice: Measuring Success in Litigation and in Out-of-Court Settlements

The question of whether and to what extent interest groups are more successful than other parties in litigation is the subject of many debates among social scientists. Previous works in the field concentrated on checking outcomes of cases that were disposed of by courts in officially published final decisions. We sought to analyze not only final court decisions but also the outcomes of out-of-court settlements. Drawing from Marc Galanter's hypothesis that groups, especially those who are "repeat players," are likely to use out-of-court settlements more often and more efficiently than other litigants (Galanter 1974), we measured actual case outcomes of petitions brought before the Israeli High Court of Justice. We found that groups in general, and "repeat player" groups in particular, achieved a success rate significantly higher than other litigants. We also found that the relative advantage of groups in litigation is the result of their ability to reach out-of-court settlements with government agencies.     

立法解释的疑问——以刑法立法解释为中心

真正意义上的立法解释,是指在刑法施行过程中,立法机关对发生歧义的规定所作的解释.但是,这种立法解释不符合法治原则的要求,不符合罪刑法定原则,不符合解释的必要性,不符合客观解释目标,也不是发现法律真实含义的有效途径.     

立法权去中心化与立法模式转变

立法权本应属于人民全体,只是交由代议机关行使,但是立法权的所有与行使的分离使其有被滥用的可能,由此导致立法权在行使时出现趋中心化:立法权绝对化、非理性化、将立法权而不是公民作为立法过程的核心。因此,应着力实现立法权的去中心化,实现立法权行使范围和方式的变革。立法模式应该实现由单一政府立法到政府立法与社会立法相结合的转变,更多地发挥公众、社会团体和专家的实质性作用。     

危险驾驶罪的立法理念与立法完善探讨

刑法修正案（八）首次将＂醉驾＂、＂飙车＂行为以危险驾驶罪入刑。鉴于民众甚至司法人员对该罪的认识上和操作中均存在不少亟待澄清和回应的问题,诸如该罪立法理念上与刑法谦抑性是否存在着矛盾和冲突？如何认识和处理该罪中＂罪过倒挂＂问题？如何理解和适用该罪的追诉时效问题？如何看待和处理该罪的行为方式过窄的问题？通过对以上诸问题进行阐释进而提出了完善相关立法的构想及其路径。     

Regulatory Agencies and Interest Groups in Occupational Health and Safety in Great Britain and West Germany: A Perspective from West Germany*

In this paper, results are introduced of an empirical study which investigated the practice of occupational health and safety regulation in two countries, Great Britain and West Germany. The analysis concentrates on the specific relationship that regulatory agencies and the concerned interest groups, employers and trade unions, develop in the two stages of policy formulation and implementation of health and safety regulation. Results show that interest groups actively participate in the regulation-making systems in both countries. Their policy pursued in this process is influenced and mediated by their actual resources as well as by individual views and assessments of each side's representatives. In Germany, a strong fragmentation with numerous private and quasi-governmental bodies entitled to formulate standards makes it difficult for the interest groups to concentrate on the competent and important committees. In contrast, we find a clearer responsibility of bodies and committees in the case of Britain. In both countries, enforcement policy prefers an advisory and persuasive style even though the legal backgrounds are quite different.