程序正义的社会心理学及在纠纷解决中的运用

法律权威需要寻找一些方法,以解决冲突并增进和协调人际和群体之间的关系。在这种考察中,社会心理学领域中围绕程序正义(procedural Justice)以实验方法展开的研究成果显示:程序和程序正义在解决纠纷方面存在巨大的潜能。无论从理论还是实证角度,程序正义的社会心理学及其在美国社会的冲突衡量与评价、冲突转型的治疗分析以及冲突解决策略的可行性认识等方面,均提供了丰富的理论资源,也有助于我们分析美国替代性纠纷解决方法 (ADR)适用的各种情境。     

Dispute Resolution in a Worker Cooperative: Formal Procedures and Procedural Justice

While most research on workplace grievance resolution focuses on hierarchical settings, this study examines grievance resolution in a worker cooperative, a workplace mutually owned and democratically managed. Drawing on data from in-depth interviews and observations, this research explores how workers' perceptions of procedural justice influence their anticipated grievance strategies. Despite working side by side in the same organization, both men and women had very different experiences regarding procedural justice and dispute resolution. For men, working at a cooperative meant informal dispute resolution strategies, while the women cited the cooperative identity as empowering them to use formal grievance procedures.     

程序性救济的制度模式及改造

新《刑事诉讼法》规定了诉讼参与人有权针对公权力机关的诉讼违法行为提出救济请求,并将检察机关确立为救济的处理机关,构建审前阶段以检察机关为中心的程序性救济模式。然而这种模式在执行效力、角色分化、审查方式和证明机制等方面均存在无法克服的缺陷,能否实现制度设计的初衷令人怀疑。在现有的体制框架内,程序性救济的制度设计应当契合人权保障的时代要求,从监督型救济模式向司法型救济模式转变,使权力监督与权利救济相得益彰而不互相侵扰。司法型救济模式以救济效力的回归和审查方式的诉讼化为核心特征,通过内设部门的调整和证明机制的填补,来分散可能存在的角色偏倚和效率滞后的制度风险,进而助益于程序性权利的彻底救济。     

An Update on the New Federal Expert Discovery Rule: The Expert's Perspective

In December 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (FRCP 26) was amended to protect certain communications between a litigating counsel and its experts from discovery. The rule protects communications and draft expert reports and lays out new disclosure requirements for the so-called “treating physician” expert. Attorneys and experts who first read the rule commonly agreed that the rule would make expert discovery more streamlined and cost-effective while preserving an opposing party's right to obtain facts and data that were considered by the expert in formulating its opinion. However, many commentators on the amended FRCP 26 warned practitioners not to fully embrace the literal meaning of the rule until it was field tested by litigating attorneys and the courts had the opportunity to interpret a number of loosely defined terms during the course of resolving federal discovery disputes. Now, almost a year after the rule's first official publication, several courts have interpreted the key terms that appear in the rule and have expressed their interpretations in written opinions. The judicial holdings of these cases cover different aspects of the rule, and it is still too early to determine how the majority of federal courts will ultimately interpret it. However, a review of current case law indicates that the courts have, thus far, taken a practical and literal view of the amended rule and have not expanded or limited its scope beyond what was generally believed to be the intent of the rule. As a result, practitioners are still hopeful that the rule will make working with an expert more efficient and less cumbersome, to the benefit of experts, attorneys, and ultimately their clients.     

论选择性争议解决方法及其适用

现代意义上的选择性争议解决方法(ADR)是指司法诉讼和仲裁以外的解决争议方法的总称。ADR既可以单独适用,也可以适用于仲裁程序和司法程序之中。ADR在单独适用的情况下,争议解决结果不具有法律上的最终强制执行力。而当ADR适用于仲裁程序和司法诉讼程序的情况下而取得的争议解决结果,则具有法院判决与仲裁裁决的强制执行力。     

Dispute Resolution Outside of Courts: Procedural Justice and Decision Acceptance Among Users of Ombuds Services in the UK

Attitudes toward legal authorities based on theories of procedural justice have been explored extensively in the criminal and civil justice systems. This has provided considerable empirical evidence concerning the importance of trust and legitimacy in generating cooperation, compliance, and decision acceptance. However, not enough attention has been paid to attitudes towards institutions of informal dispute resolution. This paper asks whether the theory of procedural justice applies to the alternative dispute resolution context, focusing on ombuds services. What are the predictors of perceptions of procedural justice during the process of dealing with an ombuds, and what factors shape outcome acceptance? These questions are analyzed using a sample of recent ombuds users. The results indicate that outcome favorability is highly correlated with perceived procedural justice, and both predict decision acceptance.     

意大利民事诉讼制度研析

意大利现行《民事诉讼法典》于1940年颁布,1942年生效.经1950年修改后一直适用至80年代末,其间虽也有些改革的尝试,但均是触及皮毛.直至90年代初,意大利才分别于1990年和1991年颁布了两项成文法,[1]或对原有的改革措施予以认可,或再行推出一些新的改革举措.意大利民事诉讼制度的运行也正是历经了上述的时间轨迹.     

Performance-Based Regulation and Regulatory Regimes: The Saga of Leaky Buildings

Regulatory reformers have widely endorsed greater use of a performance-based approach to regulation that defines objectives in terms of desired outcomes. The appeal of the performance-based approach is as much about introducing a regime that overcomes problems of overly rigid rules and inflexible enforcement as it is about regulating for results. The case of leaky buildings in New Zealand provides a cautionary tale of a flawed performance-based regulatory regime. It allowed for flexibility without sufficient accountability and in so doing showed the Achilles' heel of performance-based regulation.     

多元化纠纷解决机制中的公证价值及实现

本文拟从公证制度的功能出发，分析公证在多元化纠纷解决机制的核心价值，并就实现其价值提出脉络和路径。     

论WTO争端解决机制对WTO农业体制的影响

较之农业谈判的举步维艰,争端解决机制在对WTO现存规则的澄清和完善上取得一定的进展,从而成为发展中国家维护其在国际农产品市场上应有利益的有效手段。但值得注意的是,争端解决机制对农业体制的影响有限,更高层次的农业贸易自由化仍需要农业谈判的推动。     

分歧与和谐:析WTO争端解决机制的法律适用

关于WTO争端解决机制的法律适用问题,目前学术界存在“并入说”与“自足说”之争。两种学说分歧实质在于WTO法的属性是开放性还是自足性。从WTO争端解决机制发展而言,似应取两种学说之长,这一方面可以使DSB有效解决成员方之间的贸易争端;另一方面可以使DSB的裁决报告受到WTO成员方更广泛的接受,从而使WTO法随着时代的发展而与时俱进。     

论纠纷的构成机理及其主要特征

关于纠纷的认识，法学界并没有一个严格的界限，一般是笼统地将除刑事案件之外的一切社会不协调现象称为纠纷，而在社会学家看来，纠纷往往等同于社会冲突。事实上，从带有普遍性的矛盾、冲突到围绕着某一具体权益所发生的争议，并不是所有的这些不协调现象都和法律制度相关，只有那些属于法律框架之内的诸种不协调现象，或者可以通过法律程序解决的类似现象才具有法律上的意义。并非所有的纠纷都属于冲突，也不是所有的冲突都可以纳入法律的调整范围。纠纷的主要特征在于纠纷主体的明确性、纠纷双方的对抗性、纠纷的主观性和社会性以及纠纷解决上的自主性。     

仲裁员与仲裁当事人法律关系模型的困境及其解决

英国法传统上将仲裁员与仲裁当事人之间的法律关系视为合同关系。根据《德国仲裁法》,仲裁员合同是通过仲裁当事人与仲裁员之间的要约与承诺形成的。在排除公权力干预的前提下,对争议进行公正、有效的仲裁,也包括确保仲裁员的独立性和公正性不受仲裁员与双方仲裁当事人法律关系影响,是仲裁员、指定仲裁员的仲裁当事人以及对方当事人的共同利益诉求。仲裁员追求的经济利益,超出对方仲裁当事人所预期承担的部分的利益诉求,即便存在仲裁员与指定仲裁员的仲裁当事人之间的合意,也应当服从于对争议进行公正、有效仲裁的诉求。仅从合同法出发解释仲裁员与仲裁当事人法律关系将无法满足仲裁员和双方仲裁当事人在仲裁方面共同的关于仲裁公正、有效地进行以及取得恰当的经济利益的利益诉求。仲裁员与仲裁当事人之间的法律关系是一个复合的法律关系,包含了以提供仲裁服务为标的的合同法律关系和以作出仲裁裁决为标的的身份法律关系,前者的依据是以仲裁员为一方,以双方当事人为另一方的双方当事人合意,后者的依据是法律的相关规定。     

国际法院在解决领土争端中的作用及困境评析

当今世界领土争端问题广泛存在,尤其以亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲、欧洲等居多.国际法作为调整国与国之间关系的法律,在解决领土争端领域正日益发挥着重要作用.作为国际法的主要司法机构--国际法院逐步受到国际社会的关注,以国际法院懈决的领土争端案为依据,比较国际法院与其他政治谈判手段在解决领土争端问题上的不同之处;总结国际法院在审案过程中运用的基本法律原则,受理领土争端案的主要特征;分析在现实世界中国际法院解决领土争端所遭遇的困境以及对我国的启示.     

论民事纠纷解决方式与民事纠纷的适应性

民事纠纷纷繁复杂 ,纠纷的性质不同、类型不同 ,解决民事纠纷的方式也应当有别 ,只有这样才能建立起一套合理的解决不同类型纠纷的体系 ,以维系社会的稳定。同时 ,如何借鉴国外的先进做法 ,创造解决纠纷的非诉讼方式 ,也是司法改革的一个方向。     

WTO争端解决机制与其他国际争端解决制度之比较--兼论WTO机制对我国大陆相关制度的影响及应对

WTO机制是当今最具特色的争端解决机制。当前对该机制作深入探讨更显重要且具现实意义。本文通过比较,分析了WTO机制与其他国际争端解决制度之区别,客观评价了WTO机制及其对我国大陆相关制度的影响,并提出我国大陆应对该机制的若干措施。