Obstructive or promoting? British views on German unification 1989/90

Six years after unification German public opinion still regards Britain as the ‘No‐saying’ nation which not only holds up further European integration but also never really wanted German unity to happen. This article argues that British attitudes to the process of German unification in 1989/90 were more diverse and generally more positive than an undue concentration on the views of Margaret Thatcher and her advisers may suggest. An analysis of Foreign Office policies and an examination of public and published opinion as well as of the debates in both Houses of Parliament reveal a constructive British stance on German unity and a substantial and real contribution of British diplomats to the Two‐plus‐Four process. Whereas the Foreign Office and Downing Street agreed on the major effects German unity would have on Britain's international standing, they differed about the way Britain should respond to the new challenges.     

Steuerung jenseits von Hierarchie

The paper sheds new light on recent debates about governance and approaches contemporary problems of governing from the perspective of contemporary theories of power. The concept of “soft governing” is developed in order to capture horizontal mechanisms of power intentionally used to govern beyond formalised hierarchies characteristic of processes of governance. The paper describes in particular the horizontal forms of governing through discursive practices, argumentation and symbols and the ways in which they interact. The example of campaigns against female genital mutilation is introduced in order to illustrate possible forms of governing beyond hierarchy.     

正确认识"7·5"事件维护新疆和谐稳定

乌鲁木齐"7·5"事件是一起境内外"三股势力"精心策划和组织实施的打砸抢烧严重暴力犯罪事件."7·5"事件的发生,有着十分深刻的政治背景."7·5"事件集中反映了新疆反分裂斗争的长期性、复杂性和尖锐性.我们必须坚持一手抓改革发展,一手抓团结稳定,加快建设繁荣富裕和谐的社会主义新疆.     

西班牙的反恐立法：基于刑事法视角的考察

随着国际反恐公约的发展和恐怖主义活动的持续发生,西班牙的反恐立法发生了迅速变化.从刑事法视角来看,西班牙的反恐立法包括犯罪和刑罚,刑事程序、刑罚裁量和执行、青少年刑法、被害人待遇等内客.恐怖主义行为具有极其严重的社会危害性,但是,反恐斗争不能侵害公民的基本权利,而应在司法控制之下充分尊重合法性原则和比例原则.     

Judicial oversight of policing: investigations, evidence and the exclusionary rule

Police procedures and practices in the investigation of crime are shaped by many things. One particularly important constituent part of the development of investigative procedures and practices is the approach of the courts to the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained in a certain manner. While a judge can only address the specifics of whatever cases are brought before him, the judiciary as a whole have a significant role to play in terms of police accountability and governance through their development and application of any exclusionary rules of criminal evidence. This article examines the judicial oversight of policing by way of the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence at trial. Its central focus is on the development and operation of the exclusionary rule in Ireland, though relevant law in other jurisdictions, including England and Wales, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, is also considered. Particular attention is paid to the recent Irish Supreme Court decision of DPP v Cash, and its ramifications for judicial oversight of policing.