Quiescence in women's prisons litigation: Some exploratory issues

Despite the increase in prisoner civil rights litigation in the past decades, we know relatively little about the bases of such suits, let alone the differences between male and female litigants. Judging from existing literature, we would expect women to join male litigants in challenging the conditions of their confinement. But it seems that there has been a remarkable quiescence among women prisoners in civil rights litigation. Despite such factors as poor living conditions, overcrowding, internal disciplinary problems, lack of job training programs, and unbalanced racial composition (all positively associated with high civil rights litigation rates), it would seem that women are filing proportionally far fewer suits than their male counterparts. Further, women sue for somewhat different reasons. Using data from one federal district in Illinois and two Illinois prisons, we will argue that, compared to their male counterparts, women do not choose litigation for problem resolution, and we will suggest that gender and organizational constraints may account for much of this quiescence.     

参与式诉讼发生的社会机理与政治架构

参与式诉讼在我国的出现,是社会自身演化的结果。它是由案件当事人、媒体、律师等各种社会主体通过公众参与活动形成的社会合力促生出来的,具有参与式民主和协商式民主的色彩。在一定程度上补充了我国权力结构模式的不足,是一种新型制度推进机制,对于解决重大的社会问题和制度问题具有很强的推动作用。为充分实现它的价值,需要从审判制度改革、信息公开制度建设、当事人资助基金制度建设等方面进行制度构建。     

Technological Disasters,Litigation Stress,and the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms*

The legal system in the United States is uniquely conflict‐oriented, expensive, and legalistic. From the perspective of victims, we contend that adversarial litigation is particularly ineffective as a means of resolving conflicts that typically ensue in the aftermath of technological disasters. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, we discuss why the psychosocial impact of litigation on litigants following a technological disaster is particularly damaging. Second, examining longitudinal data collected following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, we demonstrate that the litigation process itself functions as a source of secondary trauma for litigants. Third, we provide suggestions for bypassing the litigation process altogether, via alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Although it may be that we have exchanged swords and cudgels for subpoenas and depositions, an aura of combat continues to hover about the judicial process, and combat produces casualties. Strasburger (1999 : 203)     

司法鉴定应当走向公开

司法鉴定实行保密制度不利于保障诉讼当事人的权利,与我国司法体制及诉讼制度的改革精神不相吻合,在现代法治理念中,司法鉴定应当走向公开。并还论证司法鉴定公开制度的具体要求。     

协同主义的民事审前准备程序探析

我国不存在真正严格意义上的审前准备程序,法官职权过于强大,当事人不能发挥积极主动性。构建独立的审前准备程序有必要从模式论角度加以探析。我国应选择协同主义这一各国民事诉讼模式的发展趋势。协同主义的民事审前准备程序中当事人与法官之间以及当事人相互之间协作促进诉讼,应明确法官与当事人所应承担的具体准备工作。我国民事审前准备程序的改革一定程度上在向协同主义方向发展,但尚待完善。     

Litigation Dilemmas: Lessons from the Marcos Human Rights Class Action

How do activist plaintiffs experience the process of human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)? Answering this question is key to understanding the impact on transnational legal mobilization of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the US Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of the ATS. Yet sociolegal scholars know remarkably little about the experiences of ATS litigants, before or after Kiobel. This article describes how activist litigants in a landmark ATS class action against former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos faced a series of strategic dilemmas, and how disagreements over how to resolve those dilemmas played into divisions between activists and organizations on the Philippine left. The article develops an analytical framework focused on litigation dilemmas to explain how and why activists who pursue ATS litigation as an opportunity for legal mobilization may also encounter strategic dilemmas that contribute to dissension within a social movement.     

论诉讼契约的效力

诉讼契约需具备一定的要件方可生效。生效之诉讼契约对于当事人和法院都具有一定的约束力。法定诉讼契约对于诉讼程序产生直接效力,而非法定诉讼契约仅有间接效力,尚需义务人实施后续诉讼行为方可对诉讼程序产生一定的效力。基于当事人诉讼上之抗辩,对于诉讼性质诉讼契约之违反,法院依照双方约定的有关程序继续进行或者对双方约定的诉讼行为直接予以认可;对于私法性质诉讼契约之违反,法院在审查双方关于实体部分的合意是否合理履行基础上判定该违反行为是否有效。     

Inquisitorial Adjudication and Institutional Constraints in Chinese Civil Justice

Based on participatory observations of trials and extensive interviews with judges, this article examines the operation patterns of the civil justice process in China and explores the underlying reasons behind. It finds that, despite the reform efforts placing more responsibility on the litigants, the Chinese civil proceeding remains largely inquisitorial. The decline of out‐court investigation is evident, yet judges rely on a limited form of cross‐examination aimed to obtain oral testimony that can be used to justify a decision. This kind of judge‐initiated questioning becomes an inexpensive substitute for the previously labor‐intensive court investigation. The article further argues that the judges do not adjudicate based on whatever evidence presented by the litigation parties, a change mainly attributed to the institutional constraints to which the judges are subject. They respond to the incentives by handling cases efficiently with the minimum possibility of reversal and complaint. The article concludes by offering theoretical implications on the study of comparative legal process more generally.     

当事人主导抑或法院主导？——传统民事诉讼模式的误判与归位

将“辩论主义”或“对抗制”作为传统民事诉讼模式的识别标准,都存在以偏概全的缺陷。在“当事人主张论证一法院裁判”的基本构造下,从程序运作层面、案件事实层面和法律适用层面三个层面考察,无论大陆法系还是英美法系从来没有绝对的当事人主导或法院主导。诉权和审判权之间协调配置是各国传统民事诉讼程序设计的共同法理。     

Court Finance and Court Responses to Judicial Reforms: A Tale of Two Chinese Courts

This research studies the responses of two lower-level courts, one in rural and the other in urban China, to recent judicial reforms focusing on strengthening institutional building and professionalism. It finds that the court-funding structure under which the courts heavily rely on the local government for expenses, together with the unbalanced development of local economy, remarkably affects the two courts' behavioral pattern in different ways. The rural court, for the sake of litigation fees, tries to attract potential litigants to file certain lawsuits, even though it cannot effectively handle them. The efforts toward institutional building and professionalism only aggravate the already difficult situation. The urban court's institutional quality seems to have increased in the reform process, thanks to sufficient resources from the developed and diversified local economy. But it has also become more formalized and bureaucratic, as it tries to exclude difficult and problematic disputes from getting into the court. In illustrating the complexity of transitional China's judicial reform process generated by both the unbalanced economic development and the bureaucratization of the judiciary, this article suggests that the enhancement of institutional quality, which many argue is key to economic development, may itself be contingent upon the success of economic development.     

民事诉讼协同主义:在理想和现实之间

民事诉讼协同主义,是由当事人的真实义务和法院的阐明权(义务)等一系列诉讼义务构成的理想化的诉讼图景。协同主义的基础条件是民事诉讼制度的社会化、福利化,通过适当扩大法院职权,修正、补充辩论主义。协同主义并非是一种独立的诉讼模式,而是协调各方诉讼行为的一种诉讼理想,其作用在于协调法院、当事人和其他诉讼参与人之间的整体关系。在我国构建协同主义,必须兼顾其周边制度要素。     

简论民事诉讼当事人处分权

民事诉讼当事人处分权是导源于民事实体法中的私法自治原则 ,而又经过诉讼法公法性改造的程序性权利。它是由法律明文规定的 ,允许权利人通过诉讼程序行使的 ,以保护其民事实体权利和诉讼权利为目的 ,由国家司法审判权对其实施一定限制的工具性权利。当事人民事诉讼处分权的有无与大小 ,是识别不同民事诉讼模式的重要标准之一     

辩护律师有效辩护的评价及其实现

审判中心主义是一个刑事诉讼程序内的话语,在该话语体系中,犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的辩护权有效行使是庭审实质化不可缺失的构成要素。我国《刑事诉讼法》第37条的规定是有效辩护的评价标准。评价主体是当事人和法律职业者。辩护律师有效辩护的评价标准,是律师诉讼程序的过程标准,而不是以案件的司法裁判结果为标准。可视性的辩护律师有效辩护的实现方式,是改革现行法庭审判程序的简单化运作模式,改革刑事判决书、裁定书对辩护律师辩护观点的评述,扩大庭审网络同步直播的案件范围,许可被告人以律师辩护无效为由提起上诉,许可辩护律师将未决案件争议点诉诸于公共领域,接受当事人和社会民众的检视。     

论环境民事公益诉讼的适格原告

2012年新修改的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第55条规定,“法律规定的机关和有关组织”可以对“污染环境等损害社会公共利益的行为”向人民法院提起诉讼,由此揭开了我国环境民事公益诉讼的新篇章.但是,新修改的《民事诉讼法》并没有进一步明确“法律规定的机关”和“有关组织”的范围.通过对环境民事公益诉讼司法实践的考察和分析,环境保护行政机关应该作为环境民事公益诉讼最适格的原告、检察机关可以作为环境民事公益诉讼的适格原告,二者应当属于“法律规定的机关”的范围;“有关组织”宜界定为以环境保护为主旨,经依法登记或者免予登记的非营利性社会团体、民办非企业单位、基金会等提供环境公益性服务的组织.     

Framing the Choice Between Cash and the Courthouse: Experiences With the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

In this article I report the results of a quantitative and qualitative empirical study of how those who were injured or lost a family member in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks evaluated the tradeoff between a cash payment—available through the Victim Compensation Fund—and the pursuit of litigation. Responses make it clear that potential plaintiffs saw much more at stake than monetary compensation and that the choice to forego litigation required the sacrifice of important nonmonetary, civic values: obtaining and publicizing information about what happened, prompting public findings of accountability for those responsible, and participating in the process of ensuring that there would be responsive change to what was learned about how the attacks and deaths happened. The results shed light on the framing component of the transformation of disputes, and in particular on how potential litigants see the decision to sue, or not, as a decision as much or more about how they understand their relationship to their community and their responsibilities as a citizen as how they evaluate monetary considerations.     

ONE CASE–ONE SPECIALIZED JUDGE: WHY COURTS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANAGE ALIENATION AND OTHER HIGH-CONFLICT CASES

This article challenges the traditional approach to alienation and other high-conflict cases in which many different generalist judges deal with the case. The objectives of the judicial process, dealing with cases in a just, timely, and affordable way that instils confidence in the public and litigants, cannot be met unless high-conflict cases are actively managed by one specialist family law judge. Allowing parents in high-conflict cases to decide when and how often their case should come before the court exacerbates the negative effects of the litigation on children. This article concludes that, unless the litigation is properly managed by specialist judges, the justice system unintentionally causes harm to children.     

民事诉讼代表人制度中诉讼当事人制度论

我国现有的民事诉讼代表人制度中,将人数众多一方中的每个成员均视作诉讼当事人,但只将诉讼权利义务赋予代表人,被代表的当事人却无进行诉讼的权利和义务。这样的制度安排看似符合群体诉讼的特性要求,但却与民事诉讼制度原理相悖。考察相关国家的制度安排,发现我国现有代表人制度中的诉讼当事人确定既阻碍了诉讼当事人平等原则的贯彻,又不能使代表人充分进行诉讼,从而成为该制度不能被广泛适用的先天缺陷之一。因此,作为解决群体纠纷的诉讼机制,代表人制度中诉讼当事人的选择,既要满足群体诉讼的特殊要求,又应契合民事诉讼当事人制度原理的运行机制。     

事业单位人事争议解决方式及其适用范围上的协调

随着事业单位人事关系和人事争议日益多元化,纠纷解决机制也需要相应地调整。现阶段的事业单位人事争议尽管存在多样化的解决方式,但这些解决方式不仅缺乏合法性的基础,而且相互之间也存在着许多不协调之处,尤其是适用范围上的不一致导致当事人寻求司法最终救济上的困难。对此问题的根本解决在于统一的立法,不仅需要扩大人事争议仲裁和诉讼的范围,而且要实现仲裁和诉讼在适用范围上的协调。     

An introduction to the law and economics of class action litigation

The consolidation of similar claims for compensation into a single large class of plaintiffs is referred to as “class action litigation.” This practice can have both social costs and social benefits. For an example of the social benefits of consolidating separate claims, if the facts giving rise to the claims are substantially similar, then there may be significant savings in litigation and court administrative costs from presenting those facts once rather a multitude of times. There may, however, be significant social costs to creating a class of litigants and consolidating their claims. For example, this practice may empower those with frivolous negative expected-value claims to wring an unwarranted settlement from the defendant or defendants. The article surveys other sources of social cost and benefit from class-action litigation, reviews the empirical literature on these actions, and examines recent U.S. policy debates about reforming class-action litigation. The article concludes that class-action litigation can have substantial net social benefits but only if courts assiduously oversee the class certification process so as to identify and forestall the social-cost-generating aspects of class-action litigation.     

Information, Litigation, and Common Law Evolution

It is common in the legal academy to describe judicial decisiontrends leading to new common law rules as resulting from consciousjudicial effort. Evolutionary models of litigation, in contrast,treat common law as resulting from pressure applied by litigants.One apparent difficulty in the theory of litigation is explaininghow trends in judicial decisions favoring one litigant, andbiasing the legal standard, could occur. This article presentsa model in which an apparent bias in the legal standard canoccur in the absence of any effort toward this end on the partof judges. Trends can develop favoring the better-informed litigantwhose case is also meritorious. Although the model does notsuggest an unambiguous trend toward efficient legal rules, itdoes show how private information from litigants becomes embodiedin common law, an important part of the theory of efficientlegal rules.