西南水电资源开发中少数民族移民问题与对策

无论从水电资源的分布还是从开发程度看，大西南都是我国水电资源开发的重点区域。移民问题在水电资源开发中从来就占有极其重要的地位。旧的计划经济体制下的西南水电资源开发在总体上形成了广大移民尤其是少数民族移民“念开发愈穷”的严重问题，必须通过等价赔偿、资源入股的市场化制度改革，以及对少数民族移民的特殊关注，方能理顺国家、水电企业与少数民族移民的经济关系，使水电资源开发摆脱传统的计划经济体制的羁绊，成为国家、企业和当地少数民族移民共同发展、稳定、富裕的源泉。     

Presumptions,Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law

The pure “best interests” approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The “fundamental questions” proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. “Presumptions” are not “rules,” but only starting points. No simple presumption “for” or “against” all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last—the largest category—warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in‐between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure “best interests,” to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure
• Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just “for” or “against”
• Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers

     

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

In recent years, there has been much discussion within international fora about the need for a greater consensus on how to approach relocation cases. Empirical research on the lived experience of parents and children who have been through relocation disputes has an important role to play in providing an evidence base for decisions on policy. In this article, we summarize the findings of a 5‐year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia and make recommendations in the light of this and other research evidence concerning a new approach to relocation law. We argue that there should be no presumptions. Nonetheless there is an appropriate place for legislative or appellate guidance on how to approach these disputes. “Good faith” should be irrelevant to decision making, and children should not be placed in the center of the conflict. The adjudication of relocation disputes should be on the basis of asking three questions: First, how close is the relationship between the nonresident parent and the child and how important is that relationship developmentally to the child? Second, if the relocation is to be permitted, how viable are the proposals for contact with the nonresident parent? Third, if the relationship between the child and the nonresident parent is developmentally important to the child and is likely to be diminished if the move is allowed, then (a) what are the viable alternatives to the parents living a long distance apart? and (b) is a move with the primary caregiver the least detrimental alternative?

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Describes the findings of empirical research on relocation disputes in Australia on the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes.
• Reviews various features of relocation law and proposals for reform in the light of this research evidence.
• Proposes an approach to deciding relocation cases based upon three essential questions.

     

Relocation Issues in Child Custody Evaluations: A Survey of Professionals

We report on a sample of 90 child custody evaluators in the United States, who completed an online questionnaire on their attitudes and beliefs in child custody relocation cases. Findings indicated that the vast majority of participants relied on relevant professional literature and utilized a relocation risk assessment forensic model. Participants found many risk, protective, and specific relocation factors important, but the triad of past parental involvement, support for the other parent, and child's age were afforded the most importance. Participants also reported that the moving parents sought relocation for educational/vocational reasons, to receive support of their extended family, or to remarry, while the nonmoving party most commonly opposed relocation due to fears of interference/damage to the nonmoving parent–child relationship, restrictive gatekeeping, and alienation. A common trend among participants was concerns over the possible detrimental impact of any relocation on the nonmoving parent–child relationship and quality of co‐parenting. The vast majority of participants reported that they made specific recommendations to the court about relocation, and the court agreed with their recommendation the overwhelming majority of the time. We discuss Implications of the findings as well as areas needing further research.     

数字竞赛与双重博弈:对易地扶贫搬迁政策执行偏差的一种解释

基层政策执行会出现偏差已经成为学界的共识,但是对于此问题的分析机制并不明晰,多数研究均是从单一视角予以阐释。通过深入考察易地搬迁中“拆旧复垦”政策的具体执行过程,从自上而下与自下而上相互融合视角入手,讨论“拆旧复垦”政策如何在不同利益主体的互构下发生了转变,为何完美的指标数据与文字背后却发现政策执行陷入模糊或搁置状态。从案例解构结果来看,在发展导向的逻辑下,基层政府通过主动加码寻求搬迁规模最大化以谋求在“数字竞赛”中胜出;在压力型体制的上下博弈中,基层政府采取拼凑应对的模糊执行策略以有效应对自上而下的政绩考核;在不完全信息状态的混合博弈中,政策受众在理性计算之下与基层政府形成了“合谋的沉默”。文章的贡献在于,对基层政策执行偏差的解释没有囿于讨论科层结构的弊端,而是从政策设计本身以及不同利益主体互构的视角出发解读其内在逻辑。     

Global capital and local labour. Strategies and labour relations in the Hex River Textiles factory from the 1940s to the early 1990s

ABSTRACT

This article analyses labour relations and management strategies in the Hex River Textiles factory in Worcester, South Africa, from the 1940s to the early 1990s. The factory was established by a French textile manufacturer in 1946, who relocated an entire mill from Bradford in England, to exploit the low wage labour provided by primarily coloured women. The strategy also included investments in new technology. The workers who were drawn into capitalist production resisted exploitation despite government attempts to crush the trade unions. In the late 1980s, trade union activity was rekindled, not least because there was a core group of coloured workers, who carried on the tradition. The strategy in the 1980s was less militant than in the 1950s, but, arguably more successful.     

Critical Issues in Relocation Cases: A Custody Evaluator's Response to Parkinson and Cashmore (2015) and Thompson (2015)

Parkinson and Cashmore ( 2015 ) and Thompson ( 2015 ) have written comprehensive articles outlining suggested reforms to the family law system in relocation cases. This brief article, from a child custody evaluator's perspective as opposed to researchers' and legal scholars' perspectives, highlights areas of agreement, in hope of leading to increased consensus, as well as areas of disagreement, furthering the discussion and debate of critical issues in relocation matters. Rather than an either/or approach to relocation presumptions, this article will identify a both/and perspective on presumptions for these cases. It will also focus on suggestions for evaluators in an effort to help guide ways that evaluations can be most helpful to the court.     

1‐800‐Skype‐Me

It is increasingly common that children of divorce are geographically separated from one of their parents. This article considers the challenges that arise from that reality by exploring this problem from a variety of perspectives and by providing practical tips to minimize the impact of the distance. A review of the Ontario caselaw and Arizona Guidelines reveal that certain factors are important in the resolution of these disputes, including: the age of the child, mode of transportation between homes, distance, prior contact, and feasibility of virtual access. Court‐ordered access may include remedies that, absent the distance issue, may be considered extreme, including moving to overnight/extended access periods for young children, permitting children to travel unaccompanied, favoring the nonresident parent for holidays and vacation time, allowing children to decrease contact with the nonresident parent, and decreasing or terminating child support. Where distance dictates the in‐person and virtual access schedules, creative solutions are critical to the successful resolution of these cases. Forward thinking family law professionals can meaningfully help parents to achieve better outcomes for children.     

Comment on Parkinson and Cashmore's (2015) Research and Proposal for Reforming Child Custody Relocation Law: Child Custody Evaluator and Psychological Perspecitve

Parkinson and Cashmore ( 2015 ) described their innovative, qualitative, and longitudinal research program on the experience of Australian families involved in relocation family law litigation. This constructive comment discusses the value and limitations of their main findings. Parkinson and Cashmore's approach is contrasted with the excellent quantitative research on the effects of residential mobility on children of divorce. The author disagrees with Parkinson and Cashmore's position of opposing the use of relocation factors in statute and/or case law so as to not hinder the exercise of judicial discretion any further, but agrees with their integration of the least detrimental alternative concept into a relocation analysis.     

Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson

This article provides a response to Prof. Thomson's critique, noting many points of agreement and also the broader consensus that is emerging among experts in the field. The research evidence, and the wider body of knowledge on children's well‐being generally, supports the proposition that relocation is a risk factor for children after parental separation but provides no support for a general presumption either in favor of, nor against, relocation. Nor should it be assumed that the interests of children are the same as those of their primary caregiver. We defend our three questions arguing the need in an adult‐centric debate to focus resolutely on children's interests rather than on adult rights. Both Prof. Thompson's approach and our own involve guided decision making with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration—his through weak presumptions based upon research about how judges respond to relocation issues and ours through focused questions based on research on how parents and children respond to relocations issues. We do not consider that codifying the existing practices of the courts represents real reform. We identify various risks involved in using presumptions, but note that, in jurisdictions with limited publicly funded resources for individual case assessment, presumptions, burdens or guidelines may be needed to offer rough justice to impecunious parents.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Notes points of emerging agreement on relocation within the research community
• Explores the differences between the use of presumptions and focused questions and highlights the role of empirical research of the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes
• Identifies how the level of public resourcing for the family law system may impact upon decisions about the substance of the law concerning relocation