论国际投资仲裁正当性危机

当前,国际投资仲裁裁决不一致、国际投资仲裁程序损害东道国主权的现象时有发生,使得人们对国际投资仲裁的正当性产生了质疑。造成国际投资仲裁裁决不一致的主要原因在于BIT特定条款规定较模糊、国际投资仲裁实践仍不够丰富。造成国际投资仲裁裁决损害东道国主权的主要原因在于缔约国签订了高度自由的BIT,让渡了过多的主权。各缔约国签订BIT时可尝试就一些重要条款的含义与适用标准做出更明确的规定,并用好＂四大安全阀＂,维护自身主权免受不合理的侵犯。同时国际投资仲裁制度也应通过增强透明度、设立合并仲裁等方式弥补程序本身的不足。     

国际投资仲裁正当性危机之仲裁员独立性研究

发达国家与发展中国家在相互协商的基础上构建了现代国际投资仲裁体制,克服了外交保护和当地救济的不足。但是,晚近国际投资仲裁程序出现了正当性危机。其中仲裁员缺乏独立性尤为突出。因为仲裁员是国际投资争端的裁决者,是案件公正处理的保证,是整个国际投资仲裁程序顺利进行的核心因素。因此,应该构建常设性国际投资仲裁机构,避免仲裁员与案件的利益冲突,同时应该完善《ICSID公约》的规定,详尽界定仲裁员缺乏独立性的情形,以确保仲裁员独立性的实现。     

经营者自定薪酬的控制机制探索

经营者因利益冲突而寻租,经营者自定薪酬大行其道,致使年薪制在实践中背离其设计目标.程序公正成为控制经营者自定薪酬的关键,这就要求提高经营者薪酬透明度;通过排除"灰色董事"和引入商事判断规则,超越董事会潜规则,增强利益冲突隔离机制的有效性;股东大会的事前控制应定位于薪酬政策和长期激励方案,并通过引入股东提案权和代表诉讼机制,强化股东对经营者薪酬的事后监督.     

著作权正当性的危机与出路

在著作权利益集团主导的著作权体制下,著作权成为直接控制消费者的工具以及创作自由与网络技术发展的障碍,从而造成著作权侵权成为一种常态社会现象的危机。只有坚持每一种新生的著作权客体与权利都经过充分的正当性论证、构建以维护创作自由与网络技术发展以及不以消费者为直接控制对象的权利与权利限制制度,才能使已经发生或正在发生的对著作权正当性的偏离得到回归。     

浅谈董事薪酬的程序控制

董事自定薪酬引发了正当性危机,其侵犯了公司和投资者利益,违反了法治社会的公平正义原则.正当程序的引入,使得董事薪酬在透明可视的过程中确定,从而能够使社会公众对其予以监督.为完善公司治理结构,保护股东和公司长远发展的利益,本文从三个方面来谈控制董事自定薪酬所带来的危机:第一,构建董事薪酬决策中的利益冲突的隔离机制;第二,激活公司股东监督机制;第三,完善董事薪酬信息披露制度.     

行政程序的正当性与合法性之辨——兼论我国行政程序的正当性危机

在社会科学的研究中,正当性与合法性两个词贯穿了社会科学的整体研究脉络。行政程序作为人为的公法制度安排,其正当性与合法性问题同样值得探讨。本文认为当前正当性与合法性概念的混淆体现在行政程序领域,一是我国行政程序缺乏正当性基础,二是行政程序的立法指导不明确。     

论国际投资条约仲裁的正当性缺失及其矫正

随着投资条约仲裁案件不断攀升,国际投资法以及投资条约仲裁凸显其重要性。但由于投资争议的特殊性、有关实体法的模糊或缺失、程序法的缺陷,出现了投资条约仲裁的正当性危机。实际上危机一说有夸张之嫌。经过制度化的改良,如通过增强仲裁程序透明度、允许法庭之友参与仲裁程序、合并审理、遵循先例、加强投资条约仲裁的公共功能等,投资条约仲裁制度的正当性缺失可在相当程度上得以矫正。同时,在国际投资实践中还应该细化投资条约的核心内容、限制管理国家风险、推动ADR和DPPs,以有效地防止争议发生和降低争议解决成本。     

后TRIPS时代药品专利制度正当性的危机与反思

尽管药品专利权是一项私人财产权,但因其与生命健康权有密切联系,故而具有较强的公共属性.在美国等西方发达国家主导下签订的TRIPS协议将药品专利的高标准保护扩展到了全世界,威胁了生命健康这一基本人权,由此进一步凸显了公共健康危机及发达国家与发展中国家之间的利益冲突.因此,有必要反思并重构后TRIPS时代药品专利的正当性并...     

通过程序控制死刑

如何控制死刑问题已经成为中国亟待解决的重大现实课题。从各国的实践来看,控制死刑主要包括实体控制与程序控制两种路径。尽管通过宪法或者刑法可以对死刑控制起到立竿见影的效果,但是,通过实体控制死刑,存在难以克服的局限性。相比较而言,通过程序控制死刑,则具有明显的优势。在中国目前无法全面废除死刑而实体控制又存在较大难度的情况下,通过程序控制死刑应是明智之举。     

论宪法的正当性

简而言之,正当性就是经过神学、宗教、道德、哲学论证等取得的价值合理性与经过社会认可、经验证实而获得的现实有效性的统一。对于宪法的正当性的认识需要在以下几个维度上来予以把握:宪法应当体现社会共同体的终极人文关怀;宪法应当体现合目的性和合规律性的统一;宪法应当体现价值合理性与现实有效性的统一;宪法应当体现价值普适性和文化传承性的统一。回顾中国宪法六十年的发展历程,我们可以发现,确立并坚持宪法的正当性要求,有利于准确把握中国宪法的精神实质和整全体系;有利于中国宪法的持续、稳定发展;有利于中国宪法的有效实施及其宪法秩序的全面实现。     

论行政权的宪法规制

以权力制约权力和以权利制约权力是近代西方规控行政权的传统模式 ,具有机械性和消极性 ;行政权在现代社会中的重要作用则要求在控制行政权滥用的同时有效利用其提供公共产品 ,促进社会福利的功能 ;我国与西方现代化进程近乎反向的宪政建设要求在实现国家权力合理配置的同时 ,切实注重行政程序和公民诉权对行政权的规控。     

毒品犯罪案件中特情侦查的程序控制——以4322件案例为样本的分析

对4 322件毒品犯罪案例的统计分析发现,在特情介入方面,我国各省份的认定比例、控辩审三方的认定态度以及特情的身份来源都呈现多样性,特情参与的案件以零包贩毒为主,内心常因被动且多有引诱行为,被告人适用重刑判决较为少见.反映在实务中则表现为特情的选择条件过于宽泛、案件范围背离规范、启动缺乏证据前提、过度介入以及监控失范等...     

Legitimacy Crisis? Behavioral Approach and Inhibition When Power Differences are Left Unexplained

Possessing social power leads to approach-related affect and behavior, whereas lacking power leads to inhibition (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, Psychol Rev 110:265–284, 2003). However, such effects should be moderated by whether an explanation is given for these power differences. Participants were assigned to a low-power or high-power role and then interacted with a confederate in the opposite role. Participants were told these role assignments were made for legitimate (expertise) or illegitimate (nepotism) reasons, or were given no explanation. High-power participants showed more approach-related affect and behavior and reported less dissonance than low-power participants, but many of these effects were moderated by the presence versus absence of an explanation. When no explanation for power differences was provided, high-power participants exhibited more approach-related behavior than low-power participants but also felt more guilt and unease. Implications for system justification theory and the literature on social power are discussed.     

Procedural Justice and Affect Intensity: Understanding Reactions to Regulatory Authorities

Why is it that some people respond in a more negative way to procedural injustice than do others, and why is it that some people go on to defy authority while others in the same situation do not? Personality theorists suggest that the psychological effect of a situation depends on how a person interprets the situation and that such differences in interpretation can vary as a function of individual difference factors. For example, affect intensity—one’s predisposition to react more or less emotionally to an event—is one such individual difference factor that has been shown to influence people’s reactions to events. Cross-sectional survey data collected from (a) 652 tax offenders who have been through a serious law enforcement experience (Study 1), and (b) 672 citizens with recent personal contact with a police officer (Study 2), showed that individual differences in ‘affect intensity’ moderate the effect of procedural justice on both affective reactions and compliance behavior. Specifically, perceptions of procedural justice had a greater effect in reducing anger and reports of non-compliance among those lower in affect intensity than those higher in affect intensity. Both methodological and theoretical explanations are offered to explain the results, including the suggestion that emotions of shame may play a role in the observed interaction.     

我国民间组织的合法性困境及立法思路探讨

民间组织的大规模兴起反映出我国公民社会建设过程中社会领域改革的功能性需求,但现行立法指导思想的偏差和法规体系的严重滞后,不仅制约了民间组织快速、健康发展,难以满足社会对公民结社自由权行使的迫切要求,也导致了民间组织出现严重的合法性困境。解决这一困境,既要明确立法指导思想,解决好立法原则的适时性、稳定性和连续性问题,更要兼顾民间组织培育与社会发展的良性互动关系,尊重民间组织成长的自身规律。     

Moral Convictions Often Override Concerns About Procedural Fairness: A Reply to Napier and Tyler

Napier and Tyler (this issue) question whether moral convictions about outcomes really override the influence of procedural fairness (PF) on fairness judgments and decision acceptance. The empirical answer to this question is “yes.” When people have strong moral convictions about outcomes, perceptions of outcome fairness and decision acceptance are primarily shaped by whether the morally “correct” outcomes are achieved. Pre-decision perceptions of PF have surprisingly little or no effect on these judgments. That said, pre-outcome perceptions of PF sometimes predict post-outcome perceptions of PF, even when people have morally vested outcome preferences. We provide further details supporting the validity and superiority of our data analytic approach and argue that our original conclusions were justified.

对程序正义与实体正义之冲突关系的质疑

正义本身就是一个标表各种相互冲突的利益被合理平衡的概念,这种平衡可能动态地体现在某种程序中,也可能静态地体现在某一结果中,因此只存在程序是否合乎正义,结果是否合乎正义的问题,并不存在程序合乎“程序正义”,结果合乎“实体正义”的分别。人权保障和真实发现都是程序所必须平衡的利益要求,它们之间的冲突不应被理解为程序正义与实体正义的冲突。程序正义是结果正义的根据,它们之间也不存在冲突。     

Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy: A Test of Measurement and Structure

The procedural justice theory of police legitimacy has received substantial empirical support, yet too little attention has been paid to the operationalization and measurement of these important theoretical constructs. In particular, it is unclear whether the items used to represent procedural justice and police legitimacy possess convergent and discriminant validity. The current study uses confirmatory factor analysis to test for the measurement properties of these constructs and expands upon prior research by also including a measure of encounter-based procedural justice in addition to a scale tapping into global beliefs. The results provide mixed support for discriminant and convergent validity between legitimacy and global procedural justice. Full structural equation models test an alternative specification of one of the popular measurement methods for legitimacy, and compare the relative impact of each type of procedural justice. The findings indicate that while specific procedural justice predicts legitimacy, global procedural justice has a stronger influence. Implications for measurement and police policy are discussed.     

Procedural Justice and Identification with Virtual Teams: The Moderating Role of Face-to-Face Meetings and Geographical Dispersion

We investigated the previously unstudied relationship between procedural justice and identification within virtual teams, with a particular focus on how two features of virtual teams, namely frequency of face-to-face meetings and geographical dispersion, moderate that relationship. We argue that these two variables are sources of uncertainty, which in turn makes virtual team members more sensitive to perceptions of procedural fairness as essential cues in the identification process. In this study, we used cross-sectional survey methodology and data aggregated to the team level (N = 39). As predicted, our results showed that the link between procedural justice and identification was stronger when there were few face-to-face meetings and when teams were highly dispersed.