Justice and Effective Cooperation

Justice is important because it facilitates effective cooperation and thereby enables superior forms of social coordination. On the bilateral level people are better able to resolve conflicts if they can refer to shared justice rules. When third parties are needed to facilitate cooperation they can function more effectively when the parties agree that they are exercising their authority through fair procedures;? finally, people are more willing to engage with collectivities when they evaluate them as acting through a shared conception of justice.? Overall justice is central to facilitating cooperation and the key to its success is that there is a consensus about what is just among those involved. This is equally true of the relationship between people who are negotiating about the price of a product or service and people who are members of large-scale communities, organizations, or societies.     

控权、合作与服务：公共善治论

随着公共行政的发展和公共治理的兴起,迫切需要新的理论来指导我国的行政法学研究和服务行政法治建设。秩序行政和服务行政是行政法的两大领域,行政法的基础理论必须对这两大领域都能发挥指导功能。公共善治论由于在对行政权与公民权关系的认知基础上,强调法治下的有效控权理念、强调博弈合作上的利益平衡理念、强调为民服务理念,更符合行政法的功能与目的。     

Justice and Public Opinion

One of the key questions of justice has become the subject of a discussion that has developed in Izvestia. It can be said that its kernel is the matter of the independence of the judiciary. It is this question that underlies the article by Korenevskii and Sukhodolets, "A Cause of Errors" [Otchego byvaiut oshibki] (Izvestia, No. 61), against which Galkin wrote in his article "The Court and Public Passions" [Sud i obshchestvennye] (Izvestia, No. 91).     

Public Law and Popular Justice

Group litigation is becoming commonplace. Rules of standing have been relaxed to allow groups to bring representative actions on behalf of their members or to act 'in the public interest'. Groups increasingly intervene in actions between third parties, presenting amicus briefs. This article traces the origins of group action in courts and speculates on the possible effects of changes which blur traditional distinctions between legal and political process, concluding that the legal process must be kept broadly within traditional boundaries, if the qualities of independence, rationality and finality for which it is valued are to be maintained.     

Noneconomic Motives Predicting Cooperation in Public Good Dilemmas: The Effect of Received Respect on Contributions

The present research examined the extent to which feeling respected, versus feeling disrespected, influences people's willingness to contribute to the public good. Further, it was investigated why such a positive effect of respect should occur. The findings showed that respect indeed had a positive influence on contributions. In addition, it was shown that respect also positively influenced people's feelings of belongingness and that this feeling was found to mediate the effect of respect on contributions. These findings thus indicate that research on social decision-making, and more specifically social dilemmas, has to start devoting more attention to people's noneconomic motives that are independent of outcome concerns when explaining the act of cooperation.     

Underinvestment in Public Good Technologies

Although underinvestment phenomena are the rationale for government subsidization of research and development (R&D), the concept is poorly defined and its impact is seldom quantified. Conceptually, underinvestment in industrial R&D can take the form of either a wrong amount or a suboptimal composition of R&D investment. In both cases, R&D policy has not adequately modeled the relevant economic phenomena and thus is unable to characterize, explain, and measure the underinvestment. Four factors can cause systematic underinvestment in R&D-intensive industries: complexity, timing, existence of economies of scale and scope, and spillovers. The impacts of these factors vary in intensity over the typical technology life cycle, so government policy responses must be managed dynamically. In addition to understanding the causes of underinvestment in R&D, the magnitude of the deficiency relative to some “optimum” must be estimated to enable a ranking of technology areas with respect to expected net economic benefits from a government subsidy. Project selection criteria must therefore be based on quantitative and qualitative indicators that represent the nature and the magnitude of identified market failures. The major requirement for management of R&D policy therefore is a methodology that regularly assesses long-term expected benefits and risks from current and proposed R&D portfolios. To this end, a three-stage process is proposed to effectively carry out R&D policy analysis. The three stages are (1) identify and explain the causes of the underinvestment, (2) characterize and assess the investment trends and their impacts, and (3) estimate the magnitude of the underinvestment relative to a perceived optimum in terms of its cost to the economy. Only after all three stages of analysis have been completed can the underinvestment pattern be matched with the appropriate policy response.     

Justice and Public Opinion from a Comparative Perspective

Toril Aalberg’s book links a wide array of issues and perspectives that conventionally are kept apart. She combines normative theory with empirical justice research, takes a longitudinal as well as a cross-national perspective, and she discusses her results against the background of the socio-structural and institutional context. The book provides a detailed picture of the attitudinal landscape and is a rich source of comparative data on social justice attitudes. The exceptionally wide variety of approaches that are used represents an asset of this analysis and addresses the need for an encompassing view on the issue of justice. At the same time, when recapitulating the results, it becomes evident that this strategy also entails dangers: Aalberg’s approach requires a more comprehensive conceptual framework that allows a coherent interpretation of her findings. It is argued that normative institutionalism would offer a suitable frame of interpretation for the subject and design employed.     

物联网发展与公共管理的善治

目前,我国已把物联网纳入十二五专题规划。物联网是指通过信息传感设备,按照约定的协议,把任何物品与互联网连接起来,进行信息交换和通讯,以实现智能化识别、定位、跟踪、监控和管理的一种网络,它是在互联网基础上延伸和扩展的网络。物联网产业的发展与应用,为人们的社会生产生活引入了一种崭新的服务方式。它在为广大人民群众提供极大方便的同时,更具有双刃剑性质,它对社会运行管理机制从宏观、中观和微观层面上提出了新的挑战。因此,物联网的发展与应用在客观上要求我们的公共管理要有新的思路和有效途径的跟进。     

刑法司法公信力:从基础到进退

与司法公信力和司法公众认同之间的关系相对应,刑法司法公信力与刑法司法公众认同也互为表里,且后者构成了前者的基础。刑法司法公信力与刑法司法公众认同之间的关系有着心理学基础和规范有效性基础,并蕴藏着有效控制犯罪以达致维护社会和谐稳定的最终法治效果。如果想确保并提升刑法司法公信力,则必须致力于刑法司法公众认同,包括刑法解释公众认同、司法定罪公众认同和司法量刑公众认同。刑法司法解释公众认同、司法定罪公众认同和司法量刑公众认同先后构成了刑法司法公信力的环节性基础,从而确保了刑法司法公信力的环节性实现。刑法司法公信力以价值衡量为进,以法治底线为退。     

法律行为与公序良俗

法律行为的原因、内容、条件、负担以及当事人的动机等因素违反公序良俗时,不仅各自的表现样态存在区别,对法律行为无效性的影响也不相同。法律行为的原因或内容违反公序良俗的,法律行为全部或部分无效。停止条件违反公序良俗的,法律行为全部无效;解除条件违反公序良俗的,原则上仅解除条件无效。慷慨行为中的负担违反公序良俗的,仅负担本身无效。多方法律行为当事人的共同动机或者单方法律行为当事人的动机违反公序良俗的,法律行为全部无效。我国在编纂民法典时,应当就法律行为的内容、条件、负担和当事人的动机违反公序良俗的情况及其相应的法律效果分别加以规定。     

恢复性司法视域中的反腐败追逃追赃国际合作

我国反腐败斗争取得压倒性胜利,但形势依然严峻复杂。以《联合国反腐败公约》为基础,通过劝返和域外追诉等方式,使很多外逃腐败分子回国接受审判,追缴回了很多赃款。然而我国现阶段适用这两种方式进行反腐败追逃追赃工作时,面临缺乏强力的法律支撑和顺畅的国际合作等难题。我国应当在相关法律,特别是《刑事诉讼法》《监察法》中认可“恢复性司法”的理念和模式,充分利用劝返模式的优势,减少域外追诉的负担。此外,在法律制度层面认可恢复性司法,可增进世界其他国家对我国反腐败法律制度的了解,增强我国在反腐败国际合作中的话语权。     

社会分层与治安善治

社会分层反映一个社会的权力、资源配置和结构关系、利益表达协调和实现机制、社会活力释放机制,是一个社会组织结构状况合理性与否的整体性反映。它在深层蕴含着一个社会的内在张力的蓄积情况,决定着社会治安的实际状况和演变的规律。社会治安善治,是政府和公民合作管理社会治安的过程,是政治国家与市民社会间的一种新颖关系。社会分层必然关切于治安善治的内容及其结构模式。在当代中国背景下,治安善治理应采取行政吸纳社会的模式进行,它既可以保证稳定,又能持续改善。治安善治的制度结构应该是支持性治安基础制度和控制性治安制度的有机统一。     

刑事司法领域中的民意之解读

民意是客观存在的。信息时代使得民意关注、评价甚至在一定条件下影响司法活动成为可能。刑事司法领域中的民意是公众在对因为某种原因受到社会各界格外关注的刑事案件认知、判断的基础上,根据法律正义的外在社会价值形成的带有普遍倾向和较多道德成分的观点或意见。民意是与案件处理结果有关（直接或潜在）但被国家排斥在刑事诉讼活动之外的一种重要利益的体现。     

舆论监督与司法公正的关系

舆论监督与司法公正的博弈是社会主义法治建设中的必然现象,也是制衡权力与权利的必要途径,本文从司法公正和舆论监督的概念出发,讨论了二者在现实层面的矛盾表现,并对其原因进行分析,论述了舆论监督与司法公正在社会公正这一共同价值追求下的统一和互补。     

The Rise of Digital Justice: Courtroom Technology,Public Participation and Access to Justice

This article addresses a little discussed yet fundamentally important aspect of legal technological transformation: the rise of digital justice in the courtroom. Against the backdrop of the government's current programme of digital court modernisation in England and Wales, it examines the implications of advances in courtroom technology for fair and equitable public participation, and access to justice. The article contends that legal reforms have omitted any detailed consideration of the type and quality of citizen participation in newly digitised court processes which have fundamental implications for the legitimacy and substantive outcomes of court‐based processes; and for enhancing democratic procedure through improved access to justice. It is argued that although digital court tools and systems offer great promise for enhancing efficiency, participation and accessibility, they simultaneously have the potential to amplify the scope for injustice, and to attenuate central principles of the legal system, including somewhat paradoxically, access to justice.