改革开放以来政府机构改革的分析与展望

文章盘点了机构改革“怪圈”循环的原因，指导性地提出了总的大略的对策、建议。     

论自我摹写笔迹及其鉴定

探讨自我摹写笔迹的特殊机理、特殊书写方式、特殊规律、特殊鉴定方法和标准,论述摹写与仿写的不同概念、不同书写方式、不同书写机理、不同书写结果等若干基本问题;归纳自我摹写笔迹的四个特点及其相应的特点规律并总结了鉴定识别的要点;第三部份探讨了鉴定此类笔迹的特殊方法与鉴定结论的标准问题。     

刑事审级制度的哲学与法理基础

刑事审级制度是我国刑事诉讼中的一项重要的制度,它的构建是否科学、合理,直接影响到司法的统一性、正义性、终局性和权威性的实现。希冀通过对刑事审级制度的哲学和法理基础的分析,来抛砖引玉,为我国刑事审级制度的完善进一步充实理论依据。     

宪法修改若干问题思考

分析宪法修改的概念,认为宪法修改有狭义和广义之分,狭义的宪法修改即有形修改,广义的宪法修改则包括有形修改和无形修改,而无形修改又被称为宪法变迁;剖析观念性修宪和制度性修宪这对概念,分析我国采取政策性修宪总体模式下,修宪的内容包括观念性修宪和制度性修宪;宪法修改的理由以及宪法修改的完善。     

发展中国家公务员制度特征与中国公务员制度创新

异质性、民族性、前瞻性及不完善性是发展中国家公务员制度的特征。发展中国家公务员制度建设的原则是 :优化规则 ;统一法治精神和人本原则 ;实行制度改善而不是进行“新的转型”。我国公务员制度的创新要以良好的行政环境为前提 ,以观念转变为基础 ,以管理创新为关键 ,从三个层面立体推进。     

贯彻习近平法治思想建设高质量的制度体系

习近平法治思想对新发展阶段全面依法治国作了重大部署,强调提高国家制度竞争力,以"中国之制"支撑"中国之治"。高质量制度体系是坚持和完善中国特色社会主义制度的重要举措;是遵循制度建设规律、持续保持制度显著优势的必然要求;是满足人民新时代需求、全面实现国家治理现代化的可靠路径;是凝聚改革发展共识、稳步推进现代化强国建设进程的坚强保障。应当准确界定高质量制度体系的内涵、确定其实质与形式评价标准,并在中国特色制度逻辑框架内,提出建设高质量制度体系的具体构想:坚持党的集中统一领导与尊重人民群众的首创精神的统一;坚持问题导向、目标导向和结果导向的统一;尊重制度建设的规律性与民主性的统一;坚持类型化与协调性的辩证统一;坚持制度的评估机制与自我调节机制的统一;坚持制度的稳定性与创新性的统一。     

Is Britain Facing a Crisis of Democracy?

This article contributes to the debate in this journal about the state of British democracy. I criticise the tendency to use a ‘demand–supply’ dichotomy in interpreting the strong distrust experienced by institutions and politicians, and especially the idea that all the blame for current problems is to be attributed to the inadequateness of the British political tradition (BPT). By referring to international data on democracy and to recent British trends in both public attitudes and institutional innovations, a more nuanced picture on the state of democracy emerges. I argue that the BPT is not incompatible with incremental changes that have already introduced innovations in the way politics works in Britain today, and that the task of empowering citizens is one of the most delicate aspects in this process of innovation.     

Iron Houses in the Tropical Heat: Decentralization Reforms in Africa and their Consequences

Abstract

Decentralization reforms introduced to Africa have not always delivered the intended outcomes. Through interaction with the broader historical, political, social and economic context, reforms seem to have engendered political consequences beyond decentralization itself. Most of the literature on decentralization and development emphasizes questions of institutional design and policy, but here we expand the focus of analysis and incorporate the harder-to-pin-down political patterns marking the workings of decentralization in Africa. Through the case-studies of Ghana, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Ethiopia and Uganda we seek to connect the debates on development with the scholarly literatures on comparative federalism, comparative decentralization and local democracy. The conclusion that emerges is that no magic formula which can turn countries into peaceful, stable and prosperous democracies overnight exists. And, importing formal institutions without regard to the local historical, political, social and economic context risks leaving us with elegant but dysfunctional iron houses in the tropical heat.     

Keeping face in the public sphere: recognition,discretion and Uzbekistan's relations with the United States and Germany, 1991–2006

The manner in which President Karimov's roles were recognized in the global arena affected how Uzbekistan's international relations developed – a perspective that highlights both the form and the content of bilateral relationships. While mutual interests are crucial to beginning a relationship, it is also important to understand how those relations were recognized in public and dealt with in private. If partners managed to recognize Karimov's agenda publicly, or at least act with discretion, this tended to create an atmosphere favouring cooperation. As such, recognition and discretion reveal much about Karimov's concerns with international equality and self-reliance, pointing to the reasons why Uzbekistan's relations fluctuated more with some actors than others. The United States and Germany are ideal examples of that ambivalent situation: Washington often cooperated with Uzbekistan on security matters, but then saw its military personnel excluded from Qarshi-Qanabad after the 2005 Andijan crisis; whereas Berlin witnessed little change in its relationship with Uzbekistan and continued to lease a base in Termez after 2005. This difference in outcomes can be explained in part by a dynamic of recognition and discretion.     

Mapping out the institutional geography of external security in the EU

The growth of European Union (EU) competences in the field of external security in the last decade has produced a substantial increase in the number of EU institutions and bureaucratic actors engaged in the planning and management of these policies. Moreover, the expansion of competences in such a sovereign sensitive area comes up against the persistent intergovernmental nature of the security sector. This has resulted, on the one hand, in a complex institutional architecture with heavy demands in terms of coordination, and on the other hand, in a stark differentiation and stratification of the legal regimes with a potential to impact on policy outcomes. This state of uncertainty is particularly relevant when looking at relations with countries bordering the Union, as the long-standing web of interactions there has developed a more complex institutional environment. While most of the scholarly literature focuses on single institutional sectors or policies (Common Security and Defence Policy, European Neighbourhood Policy, or the external side of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice), this study seeks to address the issue with a comprehensive analysis of the institutional framework that has emerged in the last decade, more notably, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The article provides, first, an overview of the EU’s institutional actors responsible for security policies in the regions bordering the EU, and second, an examination of the different mechanisms established to address the coordination issue. Finally, this study will argue that the traditional military dimension is but one, and certainly not the most developed, of the security instruments employed by the EU. At another level, it will be argued that the shift of focus from the military to other security tools has altered the institutional balance in the security sector, substantially adding to the relative influential weight of the Commission.