Law,the State,and the Dialectics of State Crime

Drawing on material from a study of civil society and state crime in six countries, this article reflects on two themes from Chambliss’s work: the debate between state-centred and more pluralistic views of law, and the “dialectical” approach to the analysis of state crime. It argues for a more pluralistic approach to law than Chambliss and Seidman adopted in Law Order and Power, along with a broader approach to the definition of state crime as a form of deviant behaviour. Case studies from the civil society research illustrate how the strategies adopted by organizations challenging state practices can be understood in terms of an interplay between different forms of law. With some qualifications, we support Chambliss’s dialectical approach, and attempt to clarify just what the term “dialectical” means. Finally we bring together the two strands of the argument to propose an approach to state crime founded on “dialectical legal pluralism”.     

Criminalizing the State

In this article, I ask whether the state, as opposed to its individual members, can intelligibly and legitimately be criminalized, with a focus on the possibility of its domestic criminalization. I proceed by identifying what I take to be the core objections to such criminalization, and then investigate ways in which they can be challenged. First, I address the claim that the state is not a kind of entity that can intelligibly perpetrate domestic criminal wrongs. I argue against it by building upon an account of the modern state as a moral agent proper, capable of both culpable moral and legal wrongdoing. I then consider objections to the intelligibility and legitimacy of subjecting states to domestic criminal processes, which primarily find their source in the assumption that such subjection would necessarily involve the state prosecuting, judging, and punishing itself. I argue that whether this (questionable) assumption is sound or not, it does not create the kinds of unsolvable quandaries its exponents think it does. I then move on to reject the distinct, yet related, objection that, at least in aspiring liberal jurisdictions, treating the state as a criminal objectionably involves extending to it various substantive and procedural guarantees that, given its nature and raison d’être, it should not have. Finally, I discuss three central objections to punishing the state. First, that organizations like states do not have the phenomenal consciousness required to suffer punishment. Second, that the constant possibility of dispersion of state punishment amongst individual members stands in the way of its justification. Lastly, that whatever justification there may be for making things harder for the state in response to its culpable wrongdoing, such treatment need not be understood as punishment. While partially conceding the strength of these objections, I strive to loosen their grip in ways that show that justified punishment of the state, meaningfully understood as such, remains a distinct possibility. I conclude by contrasting supposed alternatives to the criminalization of states, and by contending that my analysis leaves us with enough to keep the possibility of state criminalization on the table as a justifiable response to state wrongdoing.     

马克思主义国家理论视阈中国家治理概念辨析

界定国家治理的涵义是研究国家治理问题的前提。当前学界在界定国家治理的涵义上,存在着简单移植和生搬硬套的倾向,表现为国家治理的主体不明确,并将其与统治简单对立。只有通过对这些问题进行深入分析,论证国家是国家治理的唯一主体,并运用马克思主义的国家理论论述国家治理的目标、手段和客体等要素,才能对国家治理涵义予以科学的界定,由此进一步理清国家治理的运行层次和权力流向等问题,进而找到推进国家治理现代化的途径。     

社会保障国家:法治国家的新蓝图

现代社会是风险社会,社会风险只能经由社会化途径解决,国家经由立法、行政与司法体系对社会进行干预使现代国家逐渐成为社会保障国家。社会保障的发展产生了社会保障权等社会基本权,这些权利的实现需要经历从宪法到法律的途径,社会保障等给付行政应当适用法律保留原则,将社会保障国家逐渐地纳入到法治国家的新蓝图。     

福利社会与发展中的斯堪的纳维亚福利国家

欧洲各国致力于福利国家的建设已逾百年,经历了两次世界大战.各国在社会投入水平和福利机构方面的巨大差异至今仍在,但是各国对于福利社会的可持续性的认可和公众对福利社会的高度承诺则是基本一致的.各福利社会有来自各方面的维系:中央政府或地方政府、公司企业、家庭和自发组织的机构.不同的福利社会体系与它们之间的关系长期以来对欧洲各福利国家有着不同的意义,形成了具有不同特点的福利制度.在20世纪最后十年里重建福利国家的痛苦过程中,经济增长和社会发展之间的关系一直是整个斯堪的纳维亚地区社会问题的争论热点.然而到目前为止,效率与平等之间的冲突大多得到了解决,在北欧五国都保持了福利政策的稳定.该地区独特的历史经验并不排斥发展中国家的政府和机构为了发展福利事业而积极推行普及政策所做出的努力.     

论国有企业与国家豁免原则

国家豁免是国际法中一个古老的问题 ,但随着国家政府经济职能的扩展及国家在涉外贸易中地位的不断增强 ,国家豁免原则被赋予新的内容 ,其理论与实践也显现出分歧与新的发展动向。联合国国际法委员会自 1978年开始着手起草《国家及其财产管辖豁免公约》 ,历经二十余年取得不少阶段性成果 ,但目前仍存在若干悬而未决的问题。其中 ,国有企业与国家豁免原则的关系一直是各国普遍关注与争议的焦点问题 ,也是我国代表最关心的问题之一。本文就与此相关的三大基本问题结合我国实际进行分析评述 ,以期对我国在该领域的理论探索与实践应对有所裨益     

论国家考试立法

中国是具有悠久考试历史和考试文化的考试大国。一直为社会关注焦点的国家级考试,是国家认定人才、选拔人才和评价人才的基本制度,是维护社会公正和促进社会有序运行的重要机制,承载着促进人才流动以及人力资源的开发与配置的功能。目前,考试管理和考试环境存在的诸多问题,折射出考试法制建设的严重滞后和考试法律的缺位。规范考试管理,实行依法治考,由全国人大制定考试基本法,维护考试的公平公正与安全有序,已成为社会发展的必然要求。     

Certain Problems of State Administration under the Conditions of the Socialist State of the Entire People

Soviet state administration, constituting the activities of state bodies in the daily and direct guidance of economic and socio-cultural development, retains its importance in full in the period of the comprehensive building of communism. The direct relationship between this form of state activity and the developing economic and cultural processes defines the role of the administrative machinery in the establishment of the material and technological foundations for communism and of all the conditions needed for socialist social relationships to undergo transition to communist relations. "Along with problems of economic development," N. S. Khrushchev remarked at the 21st Congress of the CPSU, "there arise pressing problems concerning the political organization of society, the state structure and administration during the period of the comprehensive building of communism."     

国家安全的概念与维护国家安全的内容

“国家安全”概念是侦查保卫理论中的一个十分重要的基本概念,不同国家有着不同的解释;国家安全的概念和内容又是随着形势的发展而不断变化的,但其实质是维护国家政权和社会政治稳定。     

State of the art of guidelines

Guidelines have existed in medicine for many centuries. Galen's doctrine of laudable pus sent many to an early grave, but variance in treatment put the practitioner in a difficult position, especially if all did not go well. Currently, guidelines proliferate, allegedly based upon careful evaluation of evidence culled from a variety of sources. However, obedience to guidelines is variable internationally and nationally, thus raising questions about their enforceability. They are, of course, not legally enforceable, but courts may be influenced by them, and variation must be evidence-based. Guidelines cannot logically be regarded as being set in stone; if that were the case, then there could be no innovation and medicine would not advance.     

浅析国家豁免的几个问题

国家豁免泛指一国的行为和财产不受另一国的立法、司法和行政等方面的管辖。国家豁免是一项国际法原则,主权平等理论是其主要法律依据。国家豁免的主体包括国家及其政府机关、联邦国家的组成单位、国家政治区分单位、国家机构或部门和其他实体、国家代表。关于国家豁免范围,许多国家先后抛弃了绝对豁免的主张,转向限制国家豁免的立场。     

论税收国家的基础

税收国家最初是西方学者从财政角度对一种以私有制为基础的国家形态的界定,指的是财政收入大部分依存于税收的国家。由于税收国家的理论与我国传统经济体制、法律制度和社会文化观念存在着较多的冲突,因而需要运用多种视角深层次地考察我国构建税收国家的基础。客观而言,我国虽以公有制为基础且政府全部收入对税收依存度相当的低,但随着市场经济的发育和发展,同样呈现构建税收国家的可行性。而现代税收国家的建成,无疑需要我国在经济体制、法律制度和社会文化观念等方面的深层次变革相配合。