Funding the Cause: How Public Interest Law Organizations Fund Their Activities and Why It Matters for Social Change

Most of the work of public interest law organizations does not make money. How do these organizations survive, given the economic realities of law practice? Drawing on survey data from a national random sample of public interest law firms, we investigate how funding models vary across public interest organizations and how funding sources affect these organizations’ activities. We find funding structures have, over time, shifted away from foundation support toward government grants. Compared to other organizations, however, conservative organizations draw significantly less of their budget from federal and state grants, and significantly more of their budget from private contributions. Conservative organizations are significantly less likely than other organizations to rely on funding that prohibits engaging in class actions, receiving attorney's fees, or lobbying. Respondents reported that funding restrictions hamper their ability to negotiate favorable settlements, bring about systemic change, and represent vulnerable client communities. We close with a comparative institutional analysis of different funding models.     

Public Attitudes About Property Distribution at Death and Intestate Succession Laws in the United States

Intestate succession statutes should reflect the distributive preferences of intestate decedents. To date, these distributive preferences could only be inferred from distributive patterns found in wills. This telephone survey of 750 persons living in Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Texas supplements prior will studies and provides new insights concerning public attitudes about property distribution at death. The distributive preferences of the respondents revealed few significant differences that could be attributed to age, education, income, wealth, or occupational status. Two other important findings of this study suggest that a modern intestacy statute should provide that (1) the surviving spouse inherit the entire estate in preference to the decedent's issue or family of orientation and (2) issue who are in the same generation share equally in the estate.     

How Their Laws Affect our Laws: Mechanisms of Immigration Policy Diffusion in the Americas, 1790–2010

Why do laws become similar across countries? Is the adoption of similar laws and policies due to factors operating independently within each country? Do countries develop similar rules in response to similar challenges? Or is the similarity of laws and policies due to the interdependent responses that scholars have referred to as processes of policy convergence, transfer, and diffusion? We draw on an analysis of immigration and nationality laws of 22 countries throughout the Western Hemisphere from 1790 to 2010, and of seven case studies of national and international policymaking, to show that policies are often interdependent, even in the domain of immigration law, which scholars have presumed to be relatively immune to external influence. We argue that specific mechanisms of diffusion explain the rise of racist immigration policies in the Americas, their subsequent decline, and the rise of an anti‐discriminatory norm for policies. Most striking among our findings is that at key junctures after 1940, weaker countries effectively advanced an anti‐discriminatory policy agenda against the desires of world powers. We identify the conditions under which weaker countries were able to reach their goals despite opposition from world powers.     

公共治理困境与公法学的理性回应

公共治理是公共行政领域一种方兴未艾的模式,但公共治理不是万能的,也存在治理"失灵",存在政府"空心化",公共行政"能力赤字"、问责过程的复杂化、成本—收益计算模糊化、公众对政府的信任度降低等困境。公共治理不仅是一个政治学术语,也是重要的法学范畴,主要表现为公共治理以依法治理为前提,是公民参与、协商合作的持续互动,是追求平等、权利、尊严的过程。所以,面对公共治理的困境,法学策略显得尤为重要,应当彰显公共利益,树立有限政府理念,增强政府核心能力;厘清责任链,建立责任政府,加强非政府组织的责任承担能力;引入成本—收益核算机制,提高公共治理的效率;减少宪法规定的社会权种类,加强国家对民生的保障力度。     

Playing for the Rules: How and Why New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firms Invest in Secular Litigation

This article catalogues and analyzes the litigating behavior of four of the leading New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firms (NCR PILFs). Consistent with the finding from judicial politics that all PILFs seek first and foremost to have policy influence, we find that most of the litigation these PILFs invest in is either explicitly or implicitly religious or mission driven. However, we also observe a trend of increased participation in secular cases by the two largest NCR PILFs in our study. Through in‐depth, qualitative content analysis of the briefs submitted in these secular cases, we show that while some of this behavior can be attributed to organizational maintenance or coalitional goals, most of this secular participation appears motivated by a desire to influence the legal rules rather than the outcome of the particular case. In doing so, this article shows how PILFs engage with an increasingly complex legal and political landscape.     

行政指导与公共卫生安全

本文针对近年来我国公共卫生安全的现状进行深入思考,围绕行政指导在维护公共卫生安全,尤其是应对突发性公共卫生事件中所起的作用,以及行政主体在实施行政指导行为的过程中所应遵循的原则展开论述,以求对行政指导在构建我国完善的公共卫生安全体系中所发挥的作用能有所裨益。     

论欧盟法律与其成员国法律之间的关系

本文主要阐释了欧盟的法律渊源并通过判例解析了欧盟法律对其各成员国的直接效力原则和优先适用原则;以立法和司法实践说明了欧盟法律与其成员国法律之间的相互影响,进而揭示出当代两大法系相融合的某种趋势;论述了欧盟及其成员国分别对外签订的条约之间的相互关系。     

公共卫生与人权

本文是置人权于中国公共卫生场域中的阐释。起因是2004年后——2004年,人权在中国入宪——当人们试图以人权作为转型中中国公共卫生的基础理念时,却发现从旧体制（计划经济体制）走出来的中国公共卫生很难在实际上接受人权：是同样地保护每一个人,还是保护大多数人;是首先着眼于管理,还是强调国家对每一个人的健康权的积极责任,是在中国,公共卫生必须面对的问题。     

Why are the United States and the European Union failing to regulate the internet efficiently? Going beyond the bottom-up and top-down alternatives

This paper analyzes the different approaches for Internet regulation. We use the United States and European Union to illustrate the alternative approaches of self-regulation and government intervention. Our research suggests that both systems have serious shortcomings that could be ameliorated by the use of a mixed system for Internet regulation in which both the private and public sector have a role. The case study of privacy rights self regulation in the United States and its failure to effectively provide privacy regulation serves as our empirical evidence. We provide guidelines for both the government and the private sector in defining and enforcing privacy regulation. JEL Classification K33 · K2 · L51 · L86 · O57     

英美法中诉因记载的法定要求及其借鉴意义

诉因记载的法定要求经历了从严格形式主义到实质主义的转变,诉因记载的法定要求表现在诉因记载的特定性、诉因的单一性、诉因的选择与预备记载、诉因的合并记载上。我国现行法未对起诉书的记载做出具体规定,诉因记载的法定要求为我国规定如何记载起诉书提供了借鉴。