事后监督与当庭监督应当兼容并施

任何监督的目的均在于给被监督者施以一种约束力量,以促使被监督者向着监督者指引的方向运行。法律监督就是在解决监督者所要达到的依法状态与被监督者的立法、执法内容或行为是否合乎这种状态的矛盾,从而保证国家的法律能够正确、统一地实施。庭审监督是检察机关作为监督主体为了维护国家的利益和法律不受侵害,保护当事人的合法权益,依据刑诉法规定而对庭审活动的违法情况予以及时纠正,保证审判活动的正常进行。这就是庭审法律监督的价值取向。     

Friends of the Court: The Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey

During the past two decades, scholars have noted a global expansion of judicial power and court‐led rights revolutions. Far from leading a rights‐revolution, the Constitutional Court of Turkey became renowned for its restrictive take on civil liberties during this period. Why are some high courts more activist than others in protecting and expanding civil rights and liberties? I argue that judicial power and judicial independence offer incomplete explanations of judicial activism on questions of rights. Even powerful courts are activist only selectively, using their clout to protect some groups while suppressing the demands of others. Building on perspectives on legal mobilization and judicial entrenchment, I argue that the sociopolitical alliances in which high courts and judiciaries participate explain the selective nature of their activism. The initial parameters of these alliances are set during critical junctures when formerly dominant coalitions are displaced and new institutions entrench new alliances. Such alliances are not static, however, and struggles within alliances can transform high courts' orientations on rights questions.     

Lord Cottenham and the Court of Chancery

Lord Cottenham was a significant legal figure in nineteenth-century Britain. He was a Lord Chancellor and Keeper of the Great Seal in both Lord Melbourne's and Lord Russell's administrations. Yet compared with his peers he has faded into obscurity, because his contribution to the reform of the Court of Chancery and the development of the law, particularly equity, has not been fully appreciated. It will be argued that Lord Cottenham was not as successful as his successors in reforming Chancery because his attempts to do so were flawed by the view that incremental reform would redress the problems which beset the Court. However, he made some highly significant contributions to equitable doctrine, sometimes taking a practical approach to judicial decision-making and laying the foundation for some modern doctrines.     

非政府组织与国际刑事法院

近十年来,非政府组织在国际关系中取得的最大成绩就是在促成国际刑事法院的建立方面做出了巨大的努力和贡献。从建立国际刑事法院构想的提出,到《国际刑事法院规约》的起草、谈判,到《规约》的通过与生效,以"支持国际刑事法院的非政府组织联盟"(简称"国际刑事法院联盟")为核心的非政府组织都发挥了至关重要的作用。在国际刑事法院的诉讼程序中,非政府组织也可以发挥信息提供者、法庭之友、法院与受害人和证人之间桥梁、监督人等作用。国际刑事法院已正式认可了非政府组织的作用。非政府组织在国际刑事法院的建立和运行中所发挥的作用堪称国际市民社会参与国际关系的一个范例。     

Mixed Court and Jury Court: Could the Continental Alternative Fill the American Need?

For cases of serious crime a number of European countries employ a variant of the jury called the mixed court, in which laymen and professional judges sit together in a single panel that deliberates and decides on all issues of verdict and sentence. Trials in the mixed court proceed quite rapidly, in large measure because the mixed court dispenses with most of the time-consuming practices of jury control that characterize Anglo-American trial procedure. Consequently, the legal system can process all cases of serious crime to full trial. The present article describes the German mixed-court system and contrasts it with the American jury, asking to what extent the mixed court serves the purposes of the jury. The conclusion is that the mixed court serves the jury policies well, though not fully; and that it is a superior alternative to the indigenous nontrial devices—plea bargaining and bench trial—that have displaced the jury from routine American practice.     

Unique Role of the Court

The court is a unique and vital institution within the American system of government. The court's fundamental responsibility is to assure that all members of society are protected under law from harm by others. Juvenile and family courts have, within this system, the equally important responsibility to protect the best interests of children, families, and communities. These responsibilities convey to the courts a role vital to our anti-substance abuse efforts on behalf of society and especially on behalf of children and their families. Such efforts must recognize the existence of non-traditional, as well as traditional, family units within today's society.     

法院诉讼行为要论

民事诉讼行为是民事诉讼法学的一个基本理论范畴.按照德国法学家绍尔(Sauer)的说法,“诉讼行为之概念乃为诉讼法之中心”.此说虽有夸张之处,但从大陆法系诸国法学的现状来看,诉讼行为理论实为构筑民事诉讼法学体系的理论基石之一……