司法权与法律解释权辨析

司法权是法官在个案中行使的以裁判权为重心的权力,法律解释权是法官在个案中行使的对所适用的法律和所要处理的案件事实进行解释的权力,法律解释权属于司法权的一部分。司法权与法律解释权是同一种性质的权力,二者有许多相同之处。但法律解释权是一种相对独立存在的权力,它与司法权有一定的区别。厘清二者的关系,才能正确适用法律,保证司法公正。     

公权力的异化及其制衡——刍议“大众权力”

由于互联网等新媒体传播技术的迅猛发展,开创了信息大众传播时代,民众得以参与信息的传播和制造。由此,在公共领域也形成了一种以"大众"为主体,通过大流量信息的传播和发酵而支配事件的结局,通过众多人群的集体关注和议论形成强大势力而强制相关方服从的势力,这种势力可称为"大众权力"。而"大众权力"具有无法定性、无组织性、无代表性和不受限性等特点,可能会出现"虚假民意"或产生"多数人暴力"等负面效应。基于权力制衡的原则,面对严重异化的公权力,大众权力的崛起可以视作是对权力的有效监督和制衡。     

执法权与行政权辨析

执法权与行政权是国家权力体系中非常重要的两种权力,它们既有共性与部分的重合,又有各自的特点与运作范围,它们运作的科学性、公正性与否,与每个公民的切身利益密切相关.随着我国政治体制改革的逐渐深化,执法体制与行政体制的改革已势在必行,有必要首先在理论上廓清两者的界限,对两种权力的性质、特点及其概念的使用进行系统分析,为执法体制、行政体制的改革作好充分的理论铺垫.     

权力制约与权力监督的差异性分析

无论在理论视角,还是在实践层面,权力制约和权力监督普遍存在混同混用的现象,明显制约了理论创新和制度供给,当然也凸显了简要区分二者的必要性。二者皆出于控制权力的需要,在词源上已存在双向性和单向性、主体间性和主客间性的差异,自然能够衍生出以下区别:在主体构成上,制约主体具有体制内的确定性和稳定性,监督主体在体制内外皆有明显的易变性;在作用机制上,权力制约主要由体制内力量通过制度设计发挥相互制衡的作用,而权力监督则是多元主体在批判和查处中规范权力运行;在作用时效上,权力制约主要在前车之鉴中创新制度设计,防患未然,具有明显的前瞻性,权力监督则以批评或查处减少或挽回损失,具有相应的滞后性。当然,只有对二者的差异性秉持相对化而非绝对化的理解,才能精准发挥各自特长,共同发掘其规范权力运行的潜能。     

Power and Contentment

In a recent article in this journal ( Politics Vol. 17 No. 1), Colin Hay rethinks the radical conception of power developed by Steven Lukes. Hay argues that the failure to keep analytical and normative questions distinct means that Lukes mistakenly conflates the identification and critique of power relations. To circumvent this problem, Hay redefines the concept in terms which remove normative questions from the analysis of power. In this article, the contention is that the definition proposed by Hay does not meet his objective. It is argued that, contrary to Hay and other critics, the radical conception of power can be made to work within the terms originally articulated by Lukes.     

Power in the Age of Datafication: Exploring China’s Global Data Power

Journal of Chinese Political Science - Anxieties about China’s growing data power have begun to drive geopolitical and technological competition. Yet, the size of Chinese data power is...     

Power in Public Implementation: A Complex, but Important Part of Power Studies

Based on data disclosing differential treatment of regulated companies, this article shows that it is important to look at the implementation phase as well as the political decision-making phase when one talks about distribution of power in Western democracies. Doing so gives a more nuanced picture of the distribution of power. However, explaining differential treatment throughout the implementation phase with variation in the possession of different power resources gives a more or less kaleidoscopic picture and calls for a complex theory of power. Local economic strength, networks, knowledge and organizational similarity do lead to more lenient regulatory inspection, but the effect depends on whether the company is public or private. Therefore, to have power and influence, one must possess the right resources, understand how to use them and be able to handle the fact that people might expect something different from you than they expect from others – not because of what you do, but because of who you are.     

Three-Dimensional Power: A Discussion of Steven Lukes' Power: A Radical View

Lukes' third dimension of power exists where people are subject to domination and acquiesce in that domination. The intentional stance allows us to predict and explain others' behaviour in ways that those agents may not recognise. It denies agents' privileged access to their own reasons for actions. Using the intentional stance we can understand how agents may acquiesce in their own domination. We can also make distinctions between those who dominate knowingly and those who dominate without realising they do so. It allows us to distinguish morally such cases and to understand the power structure without falling into the Foucaultian trap of seeing all social relationships in the same relativistic light and where all – dominant and dominated alike – are subject to the same power relations and moral responsibility.