中新建交30年的回顾与展望

2020年是中新建交30周年,30年来,中新关系在政治、经济、人文、安全等领域发展迅猛;频繁的高层互访、密切的经贸合作、丰富多彩的文化交流以及务实的军事合作,都彰显出双方关系的先进性与引领性。相互尊重、平等相待,与时俱进、效益优先,文明互鉴成为中新交往的宝贵经验和财富。中新在交往过程中讲究循序渐进、求同存异,充分尊重对方的发展模式,充分照顾对方的舒适度,成功地达成了一个又一个的政府间合作项目。毋庸讳言,30年来,中新关系也偶有嫌隙,但整体向好是一个大的发展趋势。2020年暴发的新冠肺炎疫情成为继第二次世界大战以来全球最具影响力的事件。突如其来的疫情既是严峻的考验,也为中新双方的合作带来了新的机遇。在后疫情时代,双方在医疗卫生、社会治理、数字经济、金融法律、第三方市场等领域的合作将大有作为。中新两国应当充分发挥"快捷通道"的作用,继续深化跨境电子商务、数字城市建设方面的合作,致力于将新加坡打造成"一带一路"的超级中转站。     

Responding to Severe Parent–Child Rejection Cases Without a Parentectomy: A Blended Sequential Intervention Model and the Role of the Courts

There have been significant developments over the past two decades that have expanded our understanding of the dynamics of parent–child contact problems post‐separation, which have resulted in some changes in judicial processes to respond to these cases. One significant advancement is a more sophisticated differentiation of the nature and severity of contact problems, which better assists legal and mental health professionals to provide more suitable legal and clinical interventions. However, the issue of innovative court processes has received limited attention. The authors describe a subgroup of families within the “severe” category, for whom an expanded intervention model, referred to as a Blended Sequential Intervention is proposed. This approach involves a reversal of care with court mandated therapeutic support for the rejected parent and child, but also involves the favored parent in the therapeutic plan from the outset, and is intended to avoid a permanent “parentectomy” of the child from either parent. The authors discuss how the courts should respond to these cases, and posit that until all therapeutic treatments are exhausted, interim orders should be preferred to final determinations, and judges should maintain oversight. The authors discuss the critical role of judicial leadership in working with lawyers and mental health professionals to manage and address the issues in these high conflict cases.     

边界功能、威胁认知与中国对陆上边界问题的应对

2017年6月,中印在洞朗地区发生边界对峙。中方在此次危机中始终保持了克制,并未通过武力方式解决边界危机。这与中国在1962年运用军事手段应对印度的挑衅截然不同。为何针对与同一个对象国出现的同类性质危机,中国的应对方式存在显著差异?文章认为,中国对陆上边界问题的处理方式,主要受到边界功能和决策者对威胁程度的认知这两个因素的影响。基于中国决策者对边界功能是政治与安全功能凸显还是经济功能优先,以及对对象国行为所带来的威胁认知高低程度不同的判断,将导致中国对边界问题采取四种应对方式:诉诸武力、展示决心(包括军事对峙等)、外交谈判、互利合作。通过对中国处理1962年与2017年两次中印边界危机、1956年中缅边界问题、2004年中俄边界问题的方式进行分析,可以发现上述分析框架得到了初步验证。文章通过探讨中国对陆上边界问题采取不同应对措施的原因,不仅有助于厘清影响中国政府针对陆上边界问题采取差异化应对措施的因素,还有利于为中国恰当地处理中印领土争端及其他陆上争议边界问题提供一定的启示,进而为改善中国周边外交、保障中华民族的伟大复兴提供初步的政策建议。     

新冠疫情防控常态化下加强创新集体协商工作的思考

由于国外新冠肺炎疫情的快速蔓延以及国内疫情的起伏,使得我国新冠疫情防控呈现出常态化和长期化的趋势。后疫情时期,构建和谐的企业劳动关系,助力企业复工复产和健康发展是工会组织的当务之急。集体协商制度是市场经济国家构建和谐企业劳动关系的根本制度和主要手段,工会组织要积极引导劳动关系双方在集体协商制度框架下主张各自的权利和寻求平衡点。     

奠基早期美俄关系的《美俄商约》与詹姆斯·布坎南

1832年詹姆斯·布坎南作为美国驻俄公使来到圣彼得堡,并首度主持、签署了与俄国的《商贸与航海条约》。此前十余年美俄两国处于相互戒备状态。此约是美俄关系史上的第一份官方贸易条约,并一直持续到1912年,长期规范着美俄贸易,也引领了美俄早期商务关系,影响了两国的早期外交关系,甚至也影响了此后美国对俄长期的外交政策。詹姆斯·布坎南为此发挥了特殊作用。本文依据历史文献揭示了这段鲜为人知的历史进程及其演进的原因。     

新时代深化群团改革的实践载体研究——以天津经济技术开发区群团组织“三基地一中心”为例

天津经济技术开发区总工会(团委、妇联)牢牢把握群团改革要求,主动服务于党政工作大局,以职工群众为中心,创新建设了“三基地一中心”综合服务阵地。“三基地一中心”具有政策宣传、孵化培育、职工服务、创新创业、企业服务等功能,在思想引领、组织拓展、助力发展、维护和谐、普惠服务五个方面取得了显著成效。调研结果显示,“三基地一中心”契合职工群众需求,有助于提高职工对工会的认可度,并受到企业管理人员的好评。其今后的运维应在宣传力度、精准服务、运行机制、形式内容、资源整合、沟通反馈等方面持续发力,让职工群众拥有更多幸福感、获得感、安全感,助力经济社会高质量发展。     

世界大变局与中美日三国战略选择

在世界大变局中,战后国际格局重大变化的主要标志是“世界老二”易位。苏联、日本皆不例外;21世纪以来欧盟也由盛转衰。未来国际格局可能有三种前景:1.中美两极对抗体制;2.中美竞争合作的“两极多元体制”;3.世界各大力量多元并存,构建多元一体的人类命运共同体。这要看世界潮流是走向和平多边主义还是暴力多边主义。中国实现伟大复兴后的战略选择是“济弱扶倾”,为世界可持续发展与可持续安全做贡献。日本面临的战略选择是:继续在《日本国宪法》下走和平发展道路,还是修改宪法,成为“能战国家”的一员,加入暴力强权的多边主义?坚持开放的地区主义与国际协调,还是搞排他经济集团,远交近攻,以中国为竞争对手?利用中美对立从中渔利,还是促进中美协调而避免在中美之间“选边站”?妥善处理中日两国围绕钓鱼岛归属认知争议和台湾问题,还是重走历史老路?囿于冷战思维和传统权力政治的现实主义决策逻辑,同中国搞战略对抗,还是树立共同、综合、合作、可持续安全的新安全观,与中国加强合作?这些战略选择将关乎未来30年的中日关系。     

Divergent fates: company unions and employee involvement committees under the railway labor and national labor relations acts

Well known is that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, 1935) in the United States places a largely per se ban on nonunion employee representation (ER) groups which deal with employers over a term or condition of employment. Much less well known is that America’s other labor law, the Railway Labor Act (RLA, 1926), takes a different approach and permits employers to operate such councils and committees as long as they do not perform a collective bargaining function or interfere with workers’ free choice of a bargaining agent. Thus, under the RLA Delta Air Lines is able to operate what is today the closest living approximation to a 1920s-style ER plan while hundreds of other companies (e.g. Polaroid) under the jurisdiction of the NLRA have been forced over the years to disband similar groups on grounds they are a proscribed company union. No study to date has explored the history behind the RLA and NLRA’s divergent treatment of nonunion ER groups so this article takes a first look. The main part of the story covers the 1920–1935 period and examines the events, people, and experiences associated with company unions and ER in, respectively, the rail and manufacturing industries and why the legislative outcome in the former was a permissive stance on nonunion committees but prohibitive in the latter. The last part of the paper fast-forwards the RLA-NLRA story from the 1930s to contemporary law and practice in order to demonstrate how “history matters” when it comes to what employers can and cannot do with nonunion representation groups, such as works councils, participation and involvement committees, and dispute resolution forums.     

美国外交关系委员会对美国外交的影响

美国外交关系委员会作为美国历史最悠久、最重要的外交思想库,其政策设想一贯秉持服务于美国政府、美国国家利益的目的,并与政府建立了长期合作关系。本文拟简要梳理美国外交关系委员会的历史流变,考察外交关系委员会影响美国外交的方式,探讨外交关系委员会对美国外交的影响。     

The Seattle Teamsters and the procedural state, 1935–1942

The Teamsters Union often clashed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Seattle between 1935 and 1942. At times the Seattle Teamsters resisted the NLRB, yet in other cases the union worked within the agency's procedures to expand. In the years after the Wagner Act, the Teamsters exploited the NLRB to block employees from choosing their own union. This article uses archival records to explore cases where the Seattle Teamsters successfully adapted to federal regulation of collective bargaining between 1935 and 1942. Seattle workers opposed to the Teamsters bravely fought to protect their right to organize, yet these employees faced a union skilled at working with the procedural state. These cases show the increasing ability of the Seattle Teamsters to enroll workers wary of the union by complying with NLRB rules.