论建立以一审庭审为中心的事实认定机制

刑事诉讼的事实认定,应以一审庭审为中心,即以审判为中心、庭审为中心、一审为中心;而不应当以庭前程序为中心、庭下活动为中心、上级审为中心。然而,上述反诉讼规律的做法,在某种程度上正是中国刑事案件事实认定机制的现实。如果不解决刑事案件事实认定结构与机制的问题,就不能提高刑事案件的办案质量。但考虑现实条件,应区别案件类型与司法任务,确立不同的司法应对方式,限制这一机制的适用范围。建立这一机制,需要适度阻断侦审联结,限制庭前活动的"预审"与代审功能,实现庭审的实质化、有效性和中心作用;需要通过加强审判法官与合议庭的责任,限制审委会与院、庭长在案件事实认定上的权力,限制庭下阅卷的作用等措施,发挥庭审对事实认定的决定作用;需要规范请示汇报制度,调整诉讼资源配置,规范发回重审制度,同时全面加强基础基层建设,增强一审法院司法能力,保证事实审理以一审为中心。     

美国外资并购国家安全审查制度的新发展

＂9.11＂之后,伴随美国对国家安全的关注度加强,2007年和2008年美国相继出台了FINSA和《外国人合并、收购、接管条例》,对美国外资并购国家安全审查制度做出了重大修改,涉及到审查对象、审查标准、审查程序和审查机构等方面。对审查对象的修改,主要是对＂受管辖的并购交易＂的范围进行了明确,同时对＂不受管辖的并购交易＂做出了列举。对审查标准的修改,主要体现在对＂关键性基础设施＂做出了界定,增加了CFIUS在审查时所考虑的6项因素,明确了与＂国家安全＂相关的＂国家安全担忧＂。对审查程序的修改,增加了审查前磋商、交易方须提供的信息,规定了并购交易审查的重新提起程序。对审查机构的修改,主要体现在增加和变动了CFIUS的成员,引入了牵头部门,加强了国会监督。     

The Neglect of Quantitative Research in Green Criminology and Its Consequences

While interest in green criminology has rapidly expanded over the past twenty-five years, much of this growth has occurred on the periphery of orthodox criminology. This article suggests that green criminology’s marginalization is partially a result of its non-quantitative methodology. We hypothesize that non-quantitative tendencies within green criminology distance it from orthodox criminology because orthodox criminology values quantitative methods (Tewksbury et al. in J Crim Justice Educ 16(2):265–279, 2005). Here, we examine how neglecting quantitative research methods may contribute to inattention to green criminology within orthodox criminology, and we consider what can be done to change that situation. We suggest that employing quantitative approaches within green criminology is one way to increase its appeal to mainstream criminology, and that quantitative studies, in conjunction with other research methodologies, can also enhance generalizability of findings, influence policy, and advance theory construction and hypothesis testing.     

Prospects for health impact assessment in the United States: new and improved environmental impact assessment or something different?

Health impact assessment (HIA) has been advanced as a means of bringing potential health impacts to the attention of policy makers, particularly in sectors where health impacts may not otherwise be considered. This article examines lessons for HIA in the United States from the related and relatively well-developed field of environmental impact assessment (EIA). We reviewed the EIA literature and conducted twenty phone interviews with EIA professionals. Successes of EIA cited by respondents included integration of environmental goals into decision making, improved planning, and greater transparency and public involvement. Reported shortcomings included the length and complexity of EIA documents, limited and adversarial public participation, and an emphasis on procedure over substance. Presently, EIAs consider few, if any, health outcomes. Respondents differed on the prospects for HIA. Most agreed that HIA could contribute to EIA in several areas, including assessment of cumulative impacts and impacts to environmental justice. Reasons given for not incorporating HIA into EIA were uncertainties about interpreting estimated health impacts, that EIA documents would become even longer and more complicated, and that HIA would gain little from the procedural and legal emphasis in EIA. We conclude that for HIA to advance, whether as part of or separate from EIA, well-formulated methodologies need to be developed and tested in real-world situations. When possible, HIA should build on the methods that have been utilized successfully in EIA. The most fruitful avenue is demonstration projects that test, refine, and demonstrate different methods and models to maximize their utility and acceptance.     

“商业秘密”界定之比较研究

"商业秘密"是一个极富弹性的词,进入二十世纪后,世界各主要国家的立法及一些国际公约都试图对其作出界定.对这些界定进行比较研究不难发现,各国法律所保护的商业秘密的范围都经历了一个不断扩大的过程,而英美法系国家所界定的商业秘密的范围则要宽于大陆法系.总的说来,各国法律所保护的商业秘密范围到今天已十分宽泛,我国商业秘密立法应顺应这一趋势.     

从善治的视角强化政府回应

在日趋信息化、透明化的时代,政府的回应行为对于树立政府形象显得越来越重要。政府不积极回应势必会给社会、公民带来不理解甚至激烈对抗,使得政府在市场经济中也难以发挥主导作用。本文从善治理论入手,采用实证的方法,探讨树立一种新型政府形象的行为之一就是强化政府回应。     

解读“规范出发型”诉讼理念——以具体个案为基点

“规范出发型”和“事实出发型”是分别作为代表罗马法系和日尔曼法系诉讼理念的关键词;在中国这一有着悠久成文法传统的国度,裁判案件应在“规范出发型”理念下指导下进行。一般来说,实体法保护的权利仅限于自身框架之内,避免以虚构权利的方式达到保护利益的目的,特别是在该利益可以通过实体法上本来就具有的权利予以保护之时。在适用上,外部的基准应是民事实体法,而不应是宪法;内部的基准应是以规则为主体,只在个别情况下适用原则予以矫正或弥补。