试论故意毁坏财物罪的客观方面及犯罪对象

故意毁坏财物罪的客观方面的描述和解读在美、英、德、日及我国学术界都有所区别,其要点在于对毁坏的解释不同。我国学术界的通说与实践中的认定仍有距离,应当将毁坏解读为毁弃、损坏,这样能将抛弃、隐匿等典型的情形囊括进来。本罪的犯罪对象中关于如何具体理解财物的含义,也存在不少的争议,这里也试图对本罪中财物的内涵提出了一些看法。     

Enhancing the redistributive capacity of the Chinese state? Impact of fiscal reforms on county finance

This article seeks to test the degree to which ASEAN has been able to develop a security identity based on its collectively held norms. The article begins by isolating two norms that are central to ASEAN, namely non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states and non-use of force. The article then seeks to determine how consistently these norms have been upheld within ASEAN by analysing the policies of member states during two major crises where these norms were threatened: the 1979 Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia (Kampuchea) and the 1995 Chinese occupation of Mischief Reef. If member states pursued policies which upheld the norms in question (even where alternative unilateral policies may have been more beneficial to them), then this would suggest such a security identity existed. On the other hand, should unilateral interests take precedence over the will to uphold these collective norms, questions must be raised over the strength of ASEAN'60 Col No: 189;s security identity, both then and now.     

Grading Arson

Criminalizing arson is both easy and hard. On the substantive merits, the conduct of damaging property by fire uncontroversially warrants criminal sanction. Indeed, punishment for such conduct is overdetermined, as the conduct threatens multiple harms of concern to the criminal law: both damage to property and injury to people. Yet the same multiplicity of harms or threats that makes it easy to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of deciding to proscribe the underlying behavior) also makes it hard to criminalize “arson” (in the sense of formulating the offense(s) that will address that behavior). This article asks whether adopting one or more arson offenses is the best way for criminal law to address the conduct in question, or whether that conduct is more properly conceptualized, criminalized, and punished as multiple distinct offenses.