The Idiom of Legalism in Bar Politics: Lawyers, McCarthyism, and the Civil Rights Era

This paper considers the political role of the organized bar from three perspectives: the historical question of the stance taken by bar associations during the major civil rights debates of the post-World War II period; the sociological question of the extent to which legal associations can act collectively on highly contentious political issues; and the legal question concerning the implications of legal formalism for the politics of the bar. Contrary to the belief that legalism is an inherently conservative means of justifying professional inaction on fundamental issues, the paper argues that in fact legalism may well be the most important basis of intra-professional consensus on those issues as well as the most powerful means by which the profession can influence state and national governments. Legalism can be understood as a common professional idiom which allows mobilization on divisive issues. It can be used in support of both liberal and conservative causes. In this sense, within certain limits, legalism is neutral–an expedient which enables the profession to act politically in circumstances which otherwise would effectively immobilize its collegial associations.     

反垄断法承诺制度适用的程序控制

在反垄断法执法中引入承诺制度固然能显著提高执法效率,但承诺制度的替代性、灵活性特征决定其在一定程度上是以牺牲反垄断法的其他价值为代价来获得执法效率提升的。为此,对承诺制度的适用予以法律控制成为必需。相比实体控制的不易操作、难以固定化,各国立法与实践普遍采用程序方式来控制承诺制适用可能带来的风险。以承诺制度的适用阶段为标准,程序控制的内容基本可分为"先决程序"、"操作程序"与"后续程序"三个方面,这些内容在反垄断执法经验相对丰富的国家或地区大同小异。我国《反垄断法》也规定了"经营者承诺制度",但各类程序性控制机制基本没有建立起来。《反垄断法》实施逐渐深入的背景下,这是一个需要解决的现实问题。     

司法成本与司法效率——中国法院的财政保障与法官激励

我国司法改革进程中,法院的财政保障构成了司法成本的主要问题。从长远的观点看应建立中央统一的司法财政与决算制度。此外,为了有效遏制司法腐败和从根本上提高司法公信力,通过渐进和配套的制度改革,将法官从一般公务员系列里独立出来并给予相对高的报酬仍应作为司法改革的一个努力方向。     

网络时代的资本市场及监管法制之重塑

互联网技术正日益渗透于资本市场各个环节,并深刻影响着资本市场的结构和运行模式。网络技术与资本市场的高度融合预示着一个资本市场网络时代的到来,这需要我们重新审视已有的监管理念和监管规则,以更加从容的心态加以应对,改变以简单控制为主的监管思路和监管策略,采取积极引导、强化监管的指导思想,在发挥技术革新优势和有效监管之间积极地寻求平衡,以推动我国资本市场的成功转型。     

JOINT CUSTODY AND THE PRESCHOOL CHILD

A longitudinal study of 25 families, with children aged 14 months—5 years, in joint custody, is reported. Varying motivations that lead divorcing parents to undertake and sustain joint custody are discussed, together with the stresses and gratifications of these arrangements for the parents and children. Findings are that where both parents are motivated primarily by interest in the child, where the parenting is sensitive and where the child is shielded from interparental conflict, young children do well. Such families were not the majority in this study. Significant differences emerged in the adjustment of the 1–3 age group as compared with the 3–5 age group which point to greater difficulties for the 3–5 year-olds.     

Court Management of AIDS Disputes: A Sociolegal Analysis

Historically, disease scares reveal contradictions in the social order. We postulate that courts focus on depoliticizing social tensions revealed by AIDS, legitimating the routines of dominant parties in the AIDS sociolegal network. At the same time, courts deviate from their normal practices try upholding the claims of subordinate parties in this network, particularly people living with AIDS (PWAs) and their allies. Our analysis of 36 AlDS-related court rulings, published during the formative years of AIDS litigation in the United States, supports the notion that courts operate as "double-edged" institutions. To explain the duality of judicial decision making, we concentrate on the powers of social and cultural factors rather than on the doctrinal judgments of the courts. We trace how relational attributes, evident in contestants' characteristics (e.g., plaintiff/defendant, status differentials) and the nature of claims (i.e., restrictive/expansive), combine to account for wins for dominant parties and how other combinations of these attributes define wins for subordinate parties. We also show how judges combine specific interpretational attributes in the text of their rulings (e.g., use of divisive AIDS metaphors, deference to medical authority) to justify wins. We consolidate these findings to discuss how PWAs and their allies might use the courts to their advantage and point out the ways in which the changing epidemiology of AIDS in the United States limits the use of courts.