魏晋风度:中国文化史上的独特景观

魏晋风度是中国文化史上的一种独特现象。魏晋名士清谈玄理、品评人物、服药饮酒以及日常的言行举止,既展现迷人的风度气派,也蕴涵着深刻的文化意义。     

对“就业黑名单”现象的法律思考

"就业黑名单"是一种针对特定劳动者的就业歧视行为,制作、发布"就业黑名单"侵犯了劳动者的劳动权.现行法律对此未纳入司法程序予以救济,劳动者以名誉侵权为由要求用人单位赔偿损失被证明难以成为一个可靠的救济方式.劳动关系终止后应对劳动者负有保护义务,关于劳动者信息的采集、使用、公开,应予以严格限制.制作、公布"就业黑名单",用人单位应对劳动者承担惩罚性赔偿金,招聘单位对此类劳动者在求职时存在歧视,应承担适当赔偿责任.     

坚决维护党的声誉和形象——试论正确认识和对待党的历史

党的历史是党之根基、国之命脉、民族之精神财富。正确认识和对待党的历史,关系党的形象、关系党的生命、关系国家的长治久安。本文以胡锦涛同志的＂七一＂重要讲话和习近平在中央党校2011年秋季开学典礼上的讲话为指导,站在坚决维护党的声誉和形象的角度,从正确认识和对待党的历史的极端重要性、正确认识和把握党的历史发展的主题和主线、正确认识和把握党的历史发展的主流和本质、正确认识和把握党的历史上的错误和挫折、正确认识和对待党的历史必须坚持的原则等五个方面,论述了正确认识和对待党的历史问题,以期引起广泛的重视和关注。     

商誉评价偏差的权利配置与救济

商家通常认为消费者关于商誉的评价偏差侵害了其合法权益,往往诉诸法律,与消费者对簿公堂。司法实践中常以商誉评价是否失实作为判断侵权与否的绳矩,而忽略消费者的主观心理状态。在无确凿证据证明消费者存有恶意的情况下,应倾向于保护表达自由,以降低交易成本,促进交易。而商家则可通过更有效的模式实现商誉救济。     

积极提升执政党的网络声誉维护能力

网络声誉维护能力是指执政党对网络舆论关注的政党主体的理念、政策和形象的统一管理。具体来说,应该从四个方面着手加强能力建设:一是加强形象管理,密切党群关系;二是发挥理论引导,增强政治认同;三是规范权力运行,践行宗旨使命;四是树立阵地意识,坚持守土负责。     

我国民众名誉权感知度的实证研究与完善——以辽宁省海城地区为调研对象

名誉权关涉个人的精神满足和人格尊严而受到法律的保护,有关其法律认同的形成与认知度密切相关,实践中人们主要通过媒体宣传了解名誉权,对于其有一定认识,不趋向于选择诉讼的方式维护自己的名誉权,更注重精神损害的补偿,从道德角度去判断死者名誉权、法人名誉权以及新闻自由与名誉权冲突问题。反映出名誉权的总体认知多来自道德判断,名誉权具体法律规定认识模糊,救济上趋向选择非诉讼方式,不同学历的居民认知程度有所差异的问题。而产生问题的原因主要是关于名誉权的法律知识图式尚未形成、立法缺乏体系性、权利认识上存在偏差及法律宣传方式单一。由此,可通过建立名誉权法律保护体系、培养社会成员正确的权利意识以及建立多元化的法律宣传方式来提高名誉权认知度。     

论商业信用的法律完善

商业信用在现代商事活动中的作用随着商事交易的频繁及扩大愈发重要,商业信用的财产利益地位也开始优于其人格利益地位,故从法律上对商业信用进行界定以及对其财产性的探讨有实践意义,最后文章对我国商业信用的法律完善提出建议。     

隐私权基本问题探析

文章就隐私权问题的现状、隐私和隐私权范围的界定、侵犯隐私权的构成要件以及民事责任承担方式几个方面存在的问题阐述了自己的见解。     

试论我国隐私权的法律保护——以美国隐私权保护为参照

我国隐私权在民法中不是一项独立的人格权,只是寄生于名誉权之下,我国隐私权在诉讼法中也不是一项独立的诉因,在宪法中更没有上升为一项基本人权。在比较中借鉴美国隐私权保护的一些经验会对我国隐私权保护的完善有益。     

The Reputational Advantages of Demonstrating Trustworthiness: Using the Reputation Index with Law Students

Lawyers should care about their reputations. But exactly what sort of reputation should lawyers seek to establish and maintain in the largely nontransparent context of legal negotiation? And even if a lawyer has developed a reputation as a negotiator, how will he/she know what it is and how it came to be? I force my students to grapple with these questions by incorporating the issues of reputation and reputation development into my negotiation/mediation course. I introduced this innovation at the same time that I decided to increase my focus on developing students' skills in distributive (or value‐claiming) negotiation. Although legal negotiation certainly offers frequent opportunities for the creation of integrative joint and individual gains, the process will almost inevitably involve distribution. The pie, once baked, must be cut. As a result, I now base a portion of my students' final grade on the objective results they achieve in two negotiation simulations. Two dangers of this assessment choice are that it can encourage students to focus only on the numbers and, even worse, engage in “sharp practice”— an extreme form of hard bargaining that tests ethical boundaries — in order to achieve the best short‐term distributive outcomes. Of course, neither a quantitative focus nor sharp practice is synonymous with a distributive approach to negotiation. Nonetheless, to counterbalance the temptations posed by the focus on, and ranking of, objective results, I also base part of students' final grades on their scores on a “Reputation Index.” These scores are based on students' nominations of their peers, accompanied by explanatory comments. This article describes the Reputation Index and how I use it. It also explores the empirical support for the validity of the Reputation Index as a tool for simulating the development and assessment of lawyers' reputations in the “real world.” To that end, the article considers research regarding the bases for lawyers' perceptions of effectiveness in legal negotiation, the sometimes counterintuitive distinction between negotiation “approach” and negotiation “style,” and the relationships among perceptions of negotiation style, procedural justice, trustworthiness, and reputation.