Casting Aside Clanking Medieval Chains: Prerogative,Statute and Article 50 after the EU Referendum

This article confronts the controversies surrounding Article 50 by analysing the relationship between statute and prerogative in the UK. The piece focuses on domestic constitutional issues and suggests a new way of classifying the relationship between statute and prerogative into two types falling under ‘the abeyance principle’ or ‘the frustration principle’. The abeyance principle means that where statute and prerogative overlap, the prerogative goes into abeyance. The frustration principle means that where statute and prerogative give rise to potential inconsistencies, but do not overlap, the prerogative cannot be used inconsistently with the intention of parliament as expressed in the relevant legislation. It then argues that Article 50 has the status of primary or ‘primary‐equivalent’ legislation which could justify applying the abeyance principle. This would mean that the trigger power would be exercised on statutory authority rather than through prerogative powers. If the courts are unable thus to construe the relevant legislation it argues EU law requires the courts to bridge the gap. Alternatively, if the abeyance principle is not applicable, it argues the frustration principle could apply but the circumstances in this litigation fall outside it. In the further alternative, EU law could require the frustration principle itself to be set aside in this case.     

议行合一原则应当彻底抛弃

在马克思恩格斯那里,“议行合一“就是“议”和“行”组织的同一与职能合一。“议行合一”作为一个描述社会主义政权权力结构的概念与社会主义的现实不符,作为一种理想的权力结构模式更是有害。在社会主义的历史上,“议行合一”只有在不正常的时期才短暂地存在过,除了战争年代,它给人们带来的是灾难而不是福音。因此,“议行合一”的理论与原则应当彻底抛弃。     

Legislative Constraints on Executive Unilateralism in Separation of Powers Systems

Can legislatures effectively check unilateral executive power? One prominent and counterintuitive finding in previous work is that executives pursue unilateralism less often under divided government. While executives see greater potential policy gains through unilateral action during divided government, we argue that their likelihood of acting unilaterally depends on an opposed legislature's ability to retaliate. When polarization is high and majorities are marginal, executives are freer to act unilaterally given the difficulties legislatures have in statutorily responding. Unilateralism is also more likely when facing opposition if legislatures lack nonstatutory means of punishment, such as regulatory review. In the largest analysis of gubernatorial executive unilateralism to date, we use a new data set of 24,232 executive orders in the 50 American states between 1993 and 2013 to evaluate this argument and find strong support for its predictions. These results provide insights into how legislative policymaking capacity can influence the functioning of separation of powers systems.     

行政法规范术语与行政权范围问题探析

在我国行政法的立法文件中,行政法规范的术语与行政权的范围是非常密切的,即行政法规范的术语对行政权的范围具有决定意义,一个合理的术语既可以使行政权的范围相对明确,又可以使行政权的行使比较规范,反之,一个不大合理的规范表述则既可以使行政权的范围变得非常模糊,又使行政机关行使权力无规则可循。对于行政法规范术语如此重要的意义我国行政法学界并没有给予高度关注,到目前为止还没有一个完整行政法规范术语的著作,而2000年通过的《中华人民共和国立法法》也似乎将这一问题遗漏了。因此,我们从目前行政法规范术语存在的问题、行政法术语表达与行政主体的关系、行政法规范术语的不规则与行政职权的不确定关系分析、完善行政法规范术语与确定行政权范围的对策等方面作了较为系统的探讨。     

行政权的法律导控

分析了中国传统德治主义的价值和缺陷,提出了作为行政法理论基础的法律导控论。     

论我国股票期权法律制度

首先对我国企业界的股票期权实践进行了评析,指出我国实施的股票期权本质已蜕变为一种股票购买方案,不能起到其应有的激励作用,之后分析了产生这种变异的原因,最后,结合股票期权在我国面临的法律障碍,对建立我国股票期权法律制度提出了几条立法建议。     

论侦查权的合理配置

合理配置侦查权是打击犯罪和保障人权的双重需要。我国侦查权配置采用了多重标准,各侦查系统自成体系,互相平等又同时兼具侦查之外的其他职责,这种模式总体上是合理的,但也存在一些弊端。合理配置侦查权需要考虑各种因素,最重要的是侦查效率和侦查公正两大标准,既要符合专业化的发展趋势,又要有利于权力的监督和制约。以这些标准检视我国侦查权的配置,可以对侦查权进行适度调整,例如可以考虑将涉税案件侦查权自公安机关移转至税务机关,以提高侦查效率、减轻公安机关压力并加强对税务机关的检察监督。     

论"监督"语境下的检察权能

从概念上讲,法律监督权不像立法权、行政权或审判权那样具有超越权力结构模式意义上的明确内涵.检察机关作为我国宪法明确规定的法律监督机关,行使法律监督职能,但"专门"不代表"全部".从权力监督的视角分析,一级权力机关的监督和检察机关的法律监督构成网状监督体系的中轴,其中权力机关位于中轴的顶端,生成二级子权力,并监督其具体运行,检察机关构成监督中轴的主体.具体承担着普遍和经常性的监督职责.检察机关的法律监督主要是依靠诉讼的手段实现对权力的制约.不同于其他监督主体,检察机关的"专门"监督权能体现在各项职能均具有法律监督性质.检察机关的法律监督或者控制机制应该表现出一种张力,这种张力的底线就是职能推进规律.     

论行政令状的司法化与普通法的诞生——兼议中世纪时期英王治理国家方式的转变

在英国历史上,国王最初治理国家的手段主要靠行政治理.到12世纪时,特别是在亨利二世时期,国王治理国家的手段发生了重大转变,行政治理手段向司法治理手段让位.亨利二世对行政令状进行了著名的司法化改革.行政令状的司法化促进了英国普通法的诞生.     

论香港特别行政区行政长官的产生

香港特别行政区行政长官是“一国两制”伟大构想的产物 ,是地方政权建设史上呈现出的新生事物 ,在世界单一制国家的地方政权建设史上 ,没有任何一位地方首长的法律地位可以和香港特别行政区行政长官相比拟 (澳门特别行政区行政长官除外 )。香港特别行政区行政长官崇高的法律地位决定行政长官的产生有其特殊的程序     

日本检察官:职权、组织与机构

本文对二战以后,日本在法、德大陆法系的诉讼体制基础上引进英美法,特别是导入美国的法律思想,逐步建立完善的现代日本检察制度,从职权、组织与机构三方面作了介绍,指出了现代日本检察制度的特色。     

行政权力的制约与监督刍议

行政权力是国家权力中最动态、最广泛的一种权力,与社会和公民切身利益具有最直接的联系。而任何有效的权力都有强制力的因素,缺乏有效的制约和监督,就会出现强制力的滥用,行政权力更是如此。行政权力具有正负双重效应,它既能够造福于社会,也隐含着腐败的可能性。历史经验证明,权力不受制约和监督,必然导致滥用和腐败。法治的基本理念之一就是一切权力都需要制约和监督,法治发展的过程就是对权力的有效制约和监督的过程。因此,可以通过扩大司法权对行政权审查的范围、行政机关内部的相互制约、行政审批事项的削减等途径对行政权力进行有效的制约和监督。     

论民事执行异议之诉——对《民事诉讼法》关于执行异议之诉改革的评价

2007年新《民事诉讼法》和2008年11月3日最高人民法院下发的关于《执行程序的司法解释》，初步建立了我国执行异议之诉的制度。高法的司法《解释》和新《民事诉讼法》在规范执行异议之诉，建构其具体程序的同时，仍然没有从根本上突破传统民事执行异议制度的框架，原执行异议之中的若干缺陷仍被保留下来。为此，将要进行的民事诉讼法的系统修改，应全面建立债务人异议之诉和第三人异议之诉。     

监管失灵与市场监管权的重构

从中国市场监管权的制度设计看,明显存在定位模糊、设立缺乏合理考量、配置分散、监管者非专业性等缺陷,实质上是“政企不分”、行政主导的立法模式以及权力文化等体制痼疾在监管法制架构上的一种表象。因此,必须在推进市场化进程和政治改革的过程中,通过厘清政府经济职能、明晰政府经济职权的内涵和范围、重塑监管机构、设计适当的控制机制等路径,实现市场监管权的重构。     

论行政权的宪法规制

以权力制约权力和以权利制约权力是近代西方规控行政权的传统模式 ,具有机械性和消极性 ;行政权在现代社会中的重要作用则要求在控制行政权滥用的同时有效利用其提供公共产品 ,促进社会福利的功能 ;我国与西方现代化进程近乎反向的宪政建设要求在实现国家权力合理配置的同时 ,切实注重行政程序和公民诉权对行政权的规控。     

论司法权运行的民主性——以自组织理论为分析工具

自组织理论作为研究自然界复杂性现象和事物的方法和工具，也应该适用于广义自然界下的人类社会这一复杂系统。比较可以发现，作为人类社会子系统的司法权运行系统，存在开放性、两造的非平衡性结构、证据裁判及非线性攻防特征，这与自组织的四个基本条件是吻合的，或者说司法权运行系统具有自组织性。同时，司法权运行中所必备的整体性视野、非决定论思想和不可逆理念也与自组织理论的哲学特性契合。司法民主是司法权运行系统的自组织性体现。以自组织理论分析司法权的运行，可以避免比较法、逻辑理性等法学视域的狭隘，为司法民主寻找更为客观的社会学和自然科学意义上的根据。     

The Logic of Legislative Leadership: Preferences,Challenges, and the Speaker's Powers

Principal agent theory implies that legislators will delegate power to a leader only when they need the leader's help and the leader can be expected to provide satisfactory help if granted power. This study is the first to evaluate the implied interaction between legislators' need for help and the degree to which legislators and leaders have similar preferences. By analyzing the Speaker's powers in the U.S. states, I arrived at three key conclusions. First, institutional leadership power responds to the interaction between preference alignment and policymaking challenges. Traditionally expected effects only appear when both alignment and challenges are relatively high. Second, professionalization causes weaker leadership powers. Finally, electoral competition correlates with stronger appointment, committee, and resource powers, but weaker procedural powers.     

European Agencies' Rulemaking: Powers,Procedures and Assessment

This article aims at identifying European agencies' rulemaking powers, mapping the procedures through which such powers are exercised and assessing the existing procedural arrangements. The first section analyses the main forms of European agencies' rulemaking. It shows, on the one hand, that not all European agencies are actually engaged in the adoption of administrative rules, on the other hand, that European agencies carrying out rulemaking activities tend to converge on two specific forms of rulemaking, namely participation in the adoption of binding implementing rules and regulation by soft law. The second section, devoted to mapping the procedures through which rulemaking powers are exercised, argues that the two main types of European agencies' rulemaking cannot be said to be subject to a really common procedural framework. In both cases, the emerging procedural rules implement the same principles of transparency and participation and rely on the same consultation mechanism, sometimes complemented by regulatory impact assessment. Yet, proceduralisation has an uneven development: while the establishment of a procedural discipline is quite common with reference to participation in the adoption of binding implementing rules, regulation by soft law remains largely under‐proceduralised. The last section proposes an assessment of the European agencies' rulemaking procedures. Two main shortcomings are identified: the asymmetry between the tendency to proceduralise the adoption of binding implementing rules and the parallel tendency to keep informal the process of adoption of soft law measures; and the too rudimental development of consultation.     

论商事仲裁的性质与仲裁员的权力义务

商事仲裁兼具契约性和司法性,商事仲裁员既是民间法官又是服务提供者。作为民间法官,为完成其裁判争议的职能,仲裁员应当享有一系列与法官相同或类似的权力。同时,无论是作为民间法官还是服务提供者,仲裁员又负有一系列约定或法定的义务。