The injustice and reconstruction of procedures in eminent domain and land acquisition

Eminent domain should be regulated, the key to which is procedural restraints. Initiating procedure can organize, adjust, and setup a system of due process for claiming land acquisition, which serves to facilitate bargaining for an objective price. Since the exclusivity of property rights is affected by eminent domain power, applying transaction rules in the market to assess the fairness of the compensation is difficult. Currently, the procedural injustice is the key to the abuse of eminent domain powers, and the procedural deviation reflecting in laws and guarantees are either too vague or absent. Thus it is proposed that an institutional +reform should include procedural openness, liability for procedural errors and disposition of judicial review in advance, with the aim to guarantee the legitimacy, effect, and security of land acquisition.     

Review on the inefficiency and disorganization of judicial power

The reform of civil procedure has been taken as an important topic by both scholars and judges in the recent twenty years. Cases and judges’ practices offer materials and opportunities for scholars to carry out researches, which help judges find the direction of the reform on civil procedures. However, it is not advisable to reconstruct the absolute adversary system and pure due process in China to reduce the great power of the court. Therefore, it is essential to review on the basic theory of civil procedure and overcome the inefficiency and disorganization of the judicial power by regulating judges’ power and independence as well as their responsibilities. Xiao Jianhua, professor and doctoral tutor of China University of Politics and Law. He got a master degree in Southwest University of Politics and Law in 1995 and a doctor degree in China University of Politics and Law in 1998. He had been a Fulbright Visiting Scholar studying at Law School of Northwestern (USA) in 2003–2004. His research field covers civil procedural law and evidence law. His six books on civil procedural law and evidence law are published in China, his another book on bankruptcy will be published in England. Now his research is focused on comparative law.     

沦"儿童最大利益优先原则"在中国的确立——兼论《婚姻法》等相关法律的不足及其完善

International documents like the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) propose that in mediating on children issues, the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration. In China, the Constitution and the Law on the Protection of Minors have already set out the terms in principle for the protection of minors, however, it has not been defined in the Marriage Law (2001). In order to enforce the commitment of respecting and safeguarding human rights, the child’s best interest principle should be established in marriage and family law, along with amending related provisions. Chen Wei is a professor of law, and director of the Research Center for Foreign Family Law and Women Theories in the China Southwest University of Political Science and Law. She is in the teachings of civil law, family law, law of succession, the history of civil law and comparative family law for years. During 2003–2004, Prof. Chen, being a visiting scholar, studied foreign family laws in the Faculty of Law, Sydney University. In academic field, she has published over 50 research articles in China and abroad; and her monograph is Research on the Legislations of Marriage and Family Law of China (2000). Further, she has taken charge of editing over 10 books, for instance, A Comparative Study of Family Laws between the Mainland and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan of China (2002), A Comparative Study of Foreign Marriage and Family Law (2006) and A Comparative Study of Succession Laws among the Mainland, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan of China (2007).     

土地征收征用中的程序失范与重构

规范征地权的关键是进行程序性制约。程序具有组织功能与校准功能,征地程序的设置实质上是一个促成征地关系主体讨价还价的过程,而价格目标则是趋于某一客观估价。财产权所具有的排他性受到征地权超越性的影响,无法从一般市场中的产权交易角度来评价征地补偿的正当性与效用。而程序性失权是当前征地权滥用的关键。中国征地程序规则失范突出表现在规范模糊与程序性权利无保障。应提高征地程序的公开性、引入程序违法的归责原则、将司法审查的时间提前,以实现征地秩序的合法、效用与安全目标。     

Development of the Nationality Law of China

With the deepening of globalization, many provisions in the Nationality Law of China promulgated in 1980 are already out of time and some provisions are easy to trigger dual nationalities. Consequently, while sticking to the basic principle of the Nationality Law, certain provisions of the Nationality Law of China should be gradually improved according to the present situation of international and domestic development, and the implementing guidelines for the Nationality Law should be introduced to construct a relatively complete legal system to adjust and regulate various relationships of nationality. Song Xixiang, majoring in international law, Hong Kong and Macao law, is a professor of law and the dean of Law School of Shanghai International Studies University. Now, he is also a doctoral candidate of Wuhan University. Meanwhile, Prof. Song is an executive director of the China Society of Private International Law and of the China Society of International Law and of the China Society of International Economical Law, etc. Moreover, he is a vice chairman of Hong Kong and Macao and Taiwan Law Association.     

Symposium on China's Peaceful Development and International Law

On 2–4 December 2005, Wuhan University Law School, theInstitute of International Law and the Innovation Base of InternationalLaw and New International Order co-sponsored in Wuhan Universitya symposium entitled "China's Peaceful Development and InternationalLaw". This symposium had been planned as part of the activitiesunder one of the Major Philosophical and Social Sciences Projectsof Chinese Ministry of Education in 2004—"Research onMajor Issues of International Law in Relation to China's PeacefulDevelopment", with Professor Zeng Lingliang from Wuhan Universityas its chief expert. More than 30 experts from China Universityof Foreign Trade and Economics, Guangxi Normal University, HongKong University, Hubei University, Foreign Affairs University,Shenzhen Institute of Administration, Suzhou University, TsinghuaUniversity, Wuhan University, Xiamen University, Zhongnan Universityof Economics and Law, and Zhongnan Normal University attendedthe symposium, submitting nearly 30 articles concerning frontlineissues of international law that China is facing in the processof peaceful development, including collective security, anti-terrorism,non-traditional security, human rights, diplomatic law, lawof the sea, national unity, intellectual property, financiallaw, investment law, environmental law, antitrust law, freetrade, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporate socialresponsibility. A summary of the symposium follows.     

《内地与香港关于建立更紧密经贸关系的安排》的法律地位

The nature of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) is a free trade agreement under the framework of the WTO. For the purpose of clarifying the legal status of the CEPA and the future agreements between the Mainland and other separate customs territories of China, four options are brought forward: (1) To revise the PRC Foreign Trade Law, (2) to make amendment to the Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, (3) to have a special law on the conclusion of the interregional agreements, or (4) to amend the PRC Constitution. Wang Wei, Ph.D, is an associate professor at School of Law, Fudan University, China. Before, he was a research fellow at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong. He holds an LL.B. from the East China University of Political Science and Law, an LL.M. from Fudan University in international law, an LL.M. from Southern Methodist University in comparative and international law (Sohmen Scholar), a Ph.D from the University of London in law (the John and Joan Jackson Scholar). Dr. Wang wrote a number of articles on WTO law, financial law and commercial law, such as Historical Evolution of National Treatment in China (39 International Lawyer 759–779, Fall Issue, 2005). He has spoken and chaired conferences and seminars in London, Hong Kong and Mainland of China. Recently he acts as consultant in banking law projects, including the Asian Development Bank.     

程序控权与程序性立法的控权指向检讨——以《行政诉讼法》立法目的为个案

就对权力的规制而言,一个合理分权的权力结构当是最为根本和富有实效的,然在这一根本性前提尚未具备且短期内难有实质性变化的境况下,程序对于控权的意义更应被特别强调,尤其在如《行政诉讼法》这样的程序性立法中.因为对权力的规制需要程序要件的满足;权力行使的过程性要求对其制约的程序性;程序特别是正当程序本身即为控权机制;程序制约的过程正当性是法治之德的核心;程序的牵制性有助于催发权力结构的合理变化.但遗憾的是,在如《行政诉讼法》这样的控权性质相当浓厚的程序性立法中,由立法目的所体现的对于权力刻意维护的立法指向却是需要深刻检讨的.     

《香港基本法》解释的权限和程序问题探析

《香港基本法》是全国的宪法性法律,是香港特区的根本法。为了落实"一国两制"的精神,《香港基本法》的规定其解释权属于全国人大常委会,同时《香港基本法》规定全国人大常委会可以授予香港各级法院附条件的《香港基本法》解释权,由于二者的立场、视角、法律传统和利益存在着一定的分歧,因而在立法解释模式和司法解释模式之间存在一定的冲突与碰撞。《香港基本法》在解释主体、权限和程序设定方面存在一些问题,在实践中也引发了宪法危机,因此,应该针对存在的问题,逐步加以完善。