Pursuing the allure of combat: an ethnography of violence amongst Iraqi Shi’I combatants fighting ISIS

The social sciences speak of violence through its meaning, performances, manifestations and representations; however, the inner workings of violence are less explored. In order to suggest a different mode of seeing violence, I explore the inner workings of violence through the pleasures of and fun among Shi’i volunteer combatants. I apply Walter Benjamin’s motion of pure means to explain how violence becomes self-referential and non-representational via combat-zone ethnography amongst Iraqi Shi’i militants who fought against ISIS in Iraq. I address the fine line between pleasure and fun in order to highlight the inner workings of violence during combat and to encourage a fresh bottom-up anthropological perspective in assessing the parameters of the persistence and resilience of volunteer combatants. My approach advocates moving beyond recruitment and ideological interpolation by questioning the allure of combat through an ontological framework that includes combatants’ perspectives and narratives.     

认罪认罚从宽制度的体系性反思与建构

虽然认罪认罚从宽制度是在我国《刑事诉讼法》中得以正式确立的,但《刑事诉讼法》中涉及此制度的具体规定又都是操作层面的。据此,认罪认罚从宽制度的合理性并不能得以阐释。而依据我国《刑法》,对认罪认罚从宽制度的合理性则可以从形式逻辑、实质逻辑以及价值理念三个维度予以充分证成。由此可知,认罪认罚从宽制度本质上系《刑法》中的一种刑罚裁量制度,认罪认罚本质上是法定的从宽量刑情节。在定罪层面,犯罪嫌疑人、被告人只需自愿承认不法事实系其所为,即构成"认罪",而无需准确评价自身行为的法律性质并准确识别具体罪名;在量刑层面,"认罚"考察的重点是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的悔罪态度和悔罪表现。应当通过刑法立法的方式将认罪认罚从宽制度与自首制度、坦白制度部分重叠地整合在一起,以避免"概念混同""重复评价"的错误倾向。     

刑事被害人的知情权探析

被害人的知情权是被害人行使其他诉讼权利的逻辑前提,是诉讼民主的重要体现,亦有助于实现社会正义。国际公约及其他国际性文件和法治发达国家都对公民的知情权及被害人的知情权都作了明确规定,有的国家甚至将其上升到宪法的高度。我国刑事被害人享有一定程度的知情权,但权利告知规则仍不完善,被害人对案件的进展、诉讼结果以及刑罚的执行情况缺乏知悉途径,知情权的实现缺乏保障机制。立法上应对其作相应完善。     

家事事件程序的法理分析

台湾学者邱联恭教授提出了诉讼法理与非讼法理交错适用理论,家事事件程序交错适用诉讼法理和非讼法理是必要的和可能的,通常有三种情形.家事诉讼与非讼的集中交错以裁量权和对审权为中心.家事审判职权主义的特征使它与非讼程序有着某些相统点,因此家事诉讼事件可以一定程度的非讼化.     

对法律事实建构论的初步阐释——以主体间性为分析进路的思考

诉讼法学界关于客观真实与法律真实的争论是针对法律事实的认定标准所产生的分歧,但是,争论并没有跳出主观与客观、事实与价值、形式与实质这种二元对立的思维模式。而要探究法律事实的形成,必须重新考察诉讼活动的性质,进而实现分析进路由主体性向主体间性的转换。法律事实建构论的提出就是这种分析进路转换之后的结果,但值得注意的是,我们必须对法律事实建构论的限度保持必要的警醒。     

内地与澳门程序性违法法律后果之比较

内地与澳门虽然都建立了程序性违法的制裁制度,但价值理念、法律传统等诸多方面的不同导致了两地在有关刑事诉讼程序性违法法律后果的规定上存在较大差异。针对警察、检察官或法官的各种违反法定诉讼程序的行为,澳门刑事诉讼法规定了诉讼行为无效制度和非法证据排除规则,构成其较为完善的程序性裁判机制。相比而言,内地有关程序性违法法律后果的规定则存在不少问题。深入比较两地的程序性违法法律后果,研究其各自的运作机理和制度绩效,对于两地尤其是我国内地程序性违法制裁制度的改革与完善具有重要的借鉴意义。     

程序正义理论的再梳理:从《正义论》到《政治自由主义》——遵循罗尔斯思想发展的轨迹

在1971年出版的<正义论>里,罗尔斯将程序正义分为:完善的程序正义、不完善的程序正义、纯粹的程序正义;并认为:纯粹的程序正义决定了结果的实体正义.在学术界,罗尔斯的程序正义理论产生了涟漪:赞同观点和反对主张同时存在.作为自身学术思想的发展,在1993年出版的<政治自由主义>里,罗尔斯修订了其在<正义论>里的观点,认为:程序正义的正义性,部分依赖结果的实体正义性.学术思想的修正,并不代表罗尔斯对程序正义理论的放弃,而是加强了程序正义理论的现实实践基石.     

The Concept of Appropriation and The Offence of Theft

The English law of theft is confusing and problematic in principle. Since the introduction of the Theft Act 1968 there has been inconsistency in the interpretation of appropriation as court and commentators have grappled with the intuition that appropriation must entail some subjective element and cannot be purely objective. Although subjectivity is traditionally associated with culpability rather than with conduct, it is argued that some acts can be subjective and yet factual and stand as causes to effects. Appropriation is such an act, its necessary and sufficient condition being a mindset, here termed proprietary subjectivity, on the part of the actor. It is argued that clarification of the concept of appropriation can help to resolve misperceived problems. Such clarification will also reveal other problems in the law of theft. Some tentative comments de lege ferenda are made suggesting how these problems can be addressed.     

侦审阻断机制初探

为实现审判中心主义,必须抑制侦查对审判的影响,通过一定诉讼机制,实行侦审阻断。在我国刑事诉讼中,由于侦审阻断机制不健全,导致侦查中心主义,庭审流于形式化、走过场。应借鉴域外两大法系的做法,正确理解侦审阻断的概念与法理,完善我国侦审阻断机制。