Whistleblowers, the Public Interest, and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

Corporate crime and organisational deviance raise complex legal issues. An initial problem lies simply in identifying when such wrongdoing has occurred. Here, whistleblowers can perform a valuable service. However, publicized cases suggest that they often pay dearly for their candour, encountering unfair sanctions at work. In Britain, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 seeks to protect good-faith whistleblowers from employer reprisals. In the wake of this legislation, the authors examine whistleblowing from a socio-legal perspective, asking what motivates whistleblowers, how do institutions respond to them, can legislation adequately protect them, and what effects will PIDA have on whistleblowing, employment practices, the culture of the workplace and, ultimately, society.     

去公共利益化与案件类型化——公共利益救济的另一条路径

新《民事诉讼法》第55条将侵害公共利益作为判断案件类型并决定诉讼形式的逻辑起点,其目的本在于公益救济,但却因公共利益的不确定性导致了法律适用的困境,反而妨碍了对公益的有效救济。去除第55条中的公共利益,通过在团体诉讼框架内案件类型的分化,却能够从结果意义上达成对公益的救济。因为无论是不作为之诉还是小额多数的损害赔偿之诉,均从保护个人利益迈向了保护一般权益,发挥着制止和威慑不法侵害的功能,在客观上发挥着救济公益的作用。     

论环境公益与环境公诉

自 2 0 0 4年第 1期《科技与法律》编辑部与中国人民大学环境资源法研究所合作开办“环境法论坛”专栏以来 ,得到了广大的热爱环境资源保护事业的作者和读者的支持 ,使本专栏得以继存。再次重申 ,“环境法论坛”专栏的办刊宗旨是“专业、务实、新颖、活泼”。基于编辑对环境法学术期刊并非一定死气沉沉、拘泥形式的办刊理念的理解 ,目前我们已开设“理论推陈出新”、“立法释法之我见”、“由案说法”、“异域风景线”、“你争我鸣”和“环境法沙拉”等隐性栏目 ,期盼学界同仁恩赐如下大作 :能自圆其说的理论创新者 ;独到的建设性的立法建议和学理性释法者 ;结合新近案例的法治实践 ,并有所理论提升者 ;介绍国内外的各种新近、先进环境法制 ,开阔国人视野 ,并能启迪心智 ,而绝非仅为走马观花者 ;无论旧论新说 ,展开针锋相对的学术争鸣与回应答辩者 ;符合本栏目宗旨 ,不限篇幅与形式的书评、法制信息、学术活动综述、国外学术机构及其成果介绍等。欢迎作者赐稿、赐题。来稿请遵循本刊自 2 0 0 4年以来的以往各期的版式 ,以WORD文档附件的形式发至 :enblaw @yahoo .com .cn专用电子信箱 ,电子邮件“主题”请务必注明“环境法论坛投稿”字样。《科技与法律》编辑部“环境法论坛”专栏编辑     

重新认识法律职业：律师与社会公益

经过20多年的恢复与重建，我国的律师事业获得了重大发展，各项制度得以确立并逐步走向完善，律师从业人数也初具规模，律师行业的整体素质也有了较大的提高。但是长久以来在中国，作为维护私权、旨在实现其所代理的客户利益的律师，似乎与社会公共利益之间并无关联且相去甚远。然而，这一现象究竟是法律职业的共性还是中国转型期的特性？律师与社会公共利益之间究竟有无联系？从国家与社会公益的视角看，究竟应当怎样看待法律职业？本文拟就这些问题，作初步的探讨。     

公共利益:开放内容及其边界

公共利益是不可知的,它难以找到一个确定的实体性标准,而它本身是一个公共参与、达成共识的程序性概念,其内容是开放的。但在征收时给予充分补偿,却是任何公共利益都必须坚守的边界。这是公共利益判断的尤利塞斯之桅,是最根本的公共利益。完全补偿的确定,应该以市场价格为标准,以实际损失为依据,并且在程序上加以保障。     

论著作权法与公共利益

著作权法与公共利益存在着密切的关系 ,这是因为著作权法具有重要的公共利益目标。著作权法需要确保公共利益 ,这在长期的著作权立法和司法实践中已经被不断地得到确认。总体上 ,著作权法中的公共利益表现为确保社会公众对智力作品的必要接近与分享。著作权法通过对公共利益的确保 ,在保护著作权人专有权利的基础之上更好地实现了其立法宗旨。     

Young Lawyers and Work in the Public Interest

Much of the discussion of the bar's "public interest" effort has centered on the apparent unwillingness of lawyers, including young lawyers, to pursue public interest rather than traditional careers. To the extent that it is agreed that public interest work should be increased, the problem has been viewed as one of supply of lawyers rather than one of demand for their services. In this paper, just the opposite is argued; a variety of evidence is brought forth to suggest that the current public interest effort is limited mainly by the number of jobs available in that sector. In this light, various methods of increasing the funding of the public interest sector, and hence the number of jobs, are reviewed.     

Public Procurement Law, Public Bodies, and the General Interest: Perspectives from Higher Education

Abstract This article examines the interaction of EC public procurement law with the legislative framework governing higher education in England and Wales. It focuses on the impact of this interaction on changing status of higher education institutions, organisations that are at the margins of the much‐discussed public–private divide in law. The Higher Education Act 2004 is viewed as a driver of potential change in status, and a distinction is drawn between mechanisms which appear to support the introduction of change and those that instead introduce fluctuation and lead to concerns for legal certainty at the margins of public law. The study thus also has wider relevance where public‐sector reform is premised upon organisational forms with hybrid or ambiguous status.     

论公诉裁量中的公共利益衡量

公诉的性质、检察机关的职能决定了公共利益衡量是现代各国检察机关进行公诉裁量时应遵守的一项基本原则。公共利益衡量的适用必须具备一定的前提条件。刑事诉讼中的公共利益包括社会利益、国家利益以及被害人和被告人利益等因素 ,在进行公诉裁量时应根据具体案件的情况对各种利益进行衡量。我国的公诉裁量应体现和遵守公共利益原则。     

从"马萨诸塞州诉环境保护总署"案谈美国公民公益诉讼制度及对我国的启示

2007年4月美国联邦最高法院对"马萨诸塞州诉环境保护总署"案的终审判决,体现了公民诉讼制度的立法本意。该案进一步明确了公民诉讼的性质,肯定了地方政府和非政府组织或公民为适格的原告,降低了原告关于损害事实的证明负担,淡化了因果关系要求。借鉴美国制度,建立公益诉讼制度,赋予相关机关、社会团体和公民提起环保公益诉讼的权利,是我国有效治理污染的唯一途径。     

论民事诉讼程序中的公共利益

在民事诉讼程序中,只要公共利益的主张会引起对私人利益的限制与克减,就必须存在一定的程序系统来保证这种限制与克减的正当性与合法性,因此,公共利益的正当性只有通过对程序的约束方能实现,非优先性和法定性就成为程序对公共利益的自然要求.法院作为民事诉讼程序中的公益代表,同样也具有自利性,但其自利性在程序中应当处于辅助地位,为公益性服务.