Judicial politics in Belgium

The judiciary in Belgium is an independent branch of government and has succeeded in maintaining its independence against many odds. Not being bound by any particular method of inter‐pretion and able to control to a certain extent the machinery of government, the judges have been, whenever needed, cautiously innovative. The public is certainly not hostile, as far as such innovations are concerned. Constitutional law, morals, human rights and particularly economic law have been the areas in which judges have been most willing or compelled to take creative steps. Because these individual decisions are drafted as applications of existing general principles and statutes and largely reflect the prevailing views of society, very little criticism has been voiced about this hidden and cautious legal activism.     

司法公正与效率

公正与效率问题,是当今社会政治、经济和伦理生活中的一个重大问题。能否解决好这个问题,关系到广大人民群众根本利益的实现,关系经济发展和社会稳定,关系社会主义政权的巩固。     

Judicial Decisions and Policy

This symposium debates the impact of High Court decisions by questioning whether the High Court has the constitutional and legislative authority (and possibly the moral right) to decide policy issues and determine the rights of citizens. Arguments on the role of the High Court vary from views that the High Court provides a sphere in which political interests may be lobbied to notions that its role is solely to interpret the Australian Constitution. However, what occurs when the political aspirations of government are in conflict with the decisions of the High Court? Should the High Court adapt judicial decisions to changing social views, or consider the implications of their decisions on the executive and legislature? What is the constitutional role of the High Court? These questions are explored in detail in the following articles.     

公安机关的司法角色定位

我国的公安机关与其他国家的警察机构相比较 ,行政性质是十分典型的 ,过多的干预司法活动的现状 ,改革是必然的。我国的公安机关应将从事社会管理职能的行政执法警察与从事犯罪打击职能的司法活动警察严格划分开 ,这种划分包括机构设置上的单列和权力行使上的相对于政府部门的独立 ,以及受司法监督的独特性质。     

论罪刑法定原则下的刑法司法解释

罪刑法定原则是现代法治社会普遍接受的基本原则。应该在正确理解罪刑法定的基本含义的基础上,厘清罪刑法 定原则与刑法司法解释的关系,把握罪刑法定原则对刑法司法解释的制约。     

司法权威的文化建构机制

在很大程度上,人们选择何种方式来解决利益冲突是由文化决定的。随着从优先选择调解到优先选择诉讼的文化转型,从信赖共同体权威到信赖国家权威的文化转型,从片面追求实体正义向注重程序正义的文化转型,人们逐渐形成了优先选择司法途径的文化心理基础。司法审判过程在本质上是一种文化沟通,司法过程中当事人之间、法官与当事人之间、法官与社会公众之间、法官与法官之间关于事实认定问题和法律适用问题所进行的文化沟通,是寻求司法共识的重要机制。尊重司法结果的过程实质上是从主流价值观角度认识和评价司法结果的价值取向的过程,文化教育、文化评价、文化示范和文化体验有助于人们建立理性认识司法结果的文化思维模式,能够唤起社会主体信任法治、尊重法治的文化情怀,形成尊重司法、信任司法的文化情感,确立接受司法裁判结果的文化意识,是认同司法结果的重要文化机制。     

我国宪法权利的司法实施

社会转型使我国宪法权利案例大量出现,社会需要宪法权利的司法实施.以宪法的名义维权,大量宪法权利争议以行政法案例的方式出现,是对现行行政诉讼制度提出的要求.借助于行政诉讼保护宪法权利,行政制度规则在诉讼中面临挑战,社会迫切要求建立直接实施宪法的司法机制.     

Whistleblowing and Compliance in the Judicial Hierarchy

One way that principals can overcome the problem of informational asymmetries in hierarchical organizations is to enable whistleblowing. We evaluate how whistleblowing influences compliance in the judicial hierarchy. We present a formal model in which a potential whistleblower may, at some cost, signal noncompliance by a lower court to a higher court. A key insight of the model is that whistleblowing is most informative when it is rare. While the presence of a whistleblower can increase compliance by lower courts, beyond a certain point blowing the whistle is counterproductive and actually reduces compliance. Moreover, a whistleblower who is a “perfect ally” of the higher court (in terms of preferences) blows the whistle too often. Our model shows an important connection between the frequency of whistleblowing and the effectiveness of whistleblowing as a threat to induce compliance in hierarchical organizations.     

Ideological Competition and Conflict in the Judicial Hierarchy

Circuit splits, or conflicting rules across multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals, have important policy implications and dramatic effects on Supreme Court case selection, yet we know little about the incentives ideological lower courts face when deciding whether to initiate conflict. This article develops a formal model of a judicial hierarchy where lower court judges are subject to review by a high court with distaste for unresolved conflict, termed “split-intolerance,” and with uncertain preferences over policy. Lower courts may compete by investing costly effort in legal quality to make their rules more attractive. In equilibrium, lower courts may initiate conflict even when the odds of success before the high court are remote. Surprisingly, lower courts grow more likely to create conflict as the high court's split-intolerance increases; however, split-intolerance can also incentivize greater lower court effort. I present qualitative evidence illustrating the model's explanatory power.     

农村司法权威建设路径探析

农村司法是建设农村和谐社会的重要支撑和必要保障,必须加强农村司法权威建设。为此,我们应当健全农村法律体系,实现农村司法独立,创新农村司法制度,加强农村司法队伍建设,培育和谐的司法文化,提高农民法律意识。     

法律原则的司法适用问题探讨

法律原则是法律的基础性原理或真理,具有高度抽象性、普遍适用性、相对稳定性等特性。法律原则司法适用的深层原因包括内外两个方面:内部原因主要是指法律规则本身存在不确定性,外部原因则在于社会生活的不断变化。法律原则司法适用是弥补法律漏洞或法律缺陷的重要手段,能有限规范法官的自由栽量权。我国司法实践中法律原则适用的特点是:案件性质上,运用法律原则大多限于民商事案件,刑事案件和行政案件较少;案件类型上,多为新类型案件和疑难复杂案件;具体方法上,主要有单独适用、与规则并用和直接体现在判决主文中。司法实践中法律原则适用包括规则模式和原则模式,适用中要符合穷尽法律规则、选择明文规定的法律原则、反映社会主流价值观和栽判文书说理充分等规范要求。     

Federal Judicial Remedial Power: The Yonkers Case

The United States District Court in 1985 determined that Yonkers,New York intentionally segregated public housing and publicschools by locating nearly all of its public and subsidizedhousing in one section of the city. Although the city initiatedactions to promote school integration in compliance with a courtorder, the city council refused to implement the housing remedyorder. Failure of the council to implement a consent order in1988 led to the U.S. District Court holding the city and fourcouncil members in contempt of court and imposing fines. Thedesegregation decision was upheld by the U.S. Circuit Courtof Appeals and by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court of appealsupheld the contempt rulings against the city and the four councilmembers, and the Supreme Court granted the council members'petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari. The council membersraised procedural objections, charged the district court withabuse of discretion, maintained that the remedial ordinancecould not be adopted by the specified date without violatingthe state's notice and hearing requirements, and claimed legislativeimmunity and protection under the First Amendment. The SupremeCourt in 1990 held that the district court's contempt sanctionswere "an abuse of discretion" and that the district court shouldhave limited its contempt sanctions to the city of Yonkers andnot to the councilmen. The Court did not address the questionof whether local legislators possess legislative immunity.     

Judicial Responses to Counter-Terrorism Law after September 11

The role of the courts is quite important, especially in the protection of individual rights and liberties. Many counter-terrorism policies implemented at the national level often infringe on these rights, and courts are the best line of defense against these violations of liberty. However, courts do not always rule in favor of liberty, sometimes ruling in favor of a strict government policy. This analysis seeks to explain the conditions that may lead courts to rule in favor of, or against, the government, arguing that political fragmentation is a potentially key factor in determining when particular case outcomes occur.     

非诉行政执行案件之司法审查

对非诉行政案件执行的司法审查是近来行政法学界关心的热点。学者们对非诉行政案件是否需要审查以及审查的标准和限度作了大量的探讨,见仁见智。1999年最高院司法解释对此作了明确的规定,具有一定的合理性和进步性。但是从理论上来看,缺陷依旧存在。