论行政规则在司法审查中的地位

行政规则可称为内部规范性文件 ,① 在行政执法实践中具有重要的地位。行政规则具有约束下级机关及其所属公务人员的效力 ,而行政机关基于行政服从的义务必须遵守行政规则 ,从而使得行政规则具有了间接影响行政相对人权利和义务的法律效果。因此 ,法院在对具体行政行为进行合法性审查时 ,不可忽视对行政规则的审查 ;对合法有效的行政规则应该在裁判书中适当地加以引用。     

Old Allies, New Friends: Intelligence-Sharing in the War on Terror

The Bush administration's designation of its national strategy as a war on terror highlights the importance of combating terrorism on an international level. Fundamental to this effort is bilateral intelligence-sharing. Intelligence reform efforts to date have focused on improving intelligence-sharing within the U.S. intelligence community. However, critical intelligence can be gained through America's international partners. This paper assesses the state of bilateral intelligence-sharing relationships and the challenges that need to be overcome.     

Scientific and legal standards of statistical evidence in toxic tort and discrimination suits

Many legal disputes turn on scientific, especially statistical, evidence. Traditionally scientists have accepted only that statistical evidence which satisfies a 95 percent (or 99 percent) rule — that is, only evidence which has less than five percent (or one percent) probability of resulting from chance.The rationale for this rule is the reluctance of scientists to accept anything less than the best-supported new knowledge. The rule reflects the internal needs of scientific practice. However, when uncritically adopted as a rule for admitting legal evidence, the seemingly innocuous 95 percent rule distorts the balance of interests historically protected by the legal system. In particular, plaintiffs in toxic tort and employment discrimination suits are effectively held to a heavier burden of proof in showing that their injuries were more probably than not caused by the defendant's actions. The result is that too many victims of toxic torts or employment discrimination cannot win legal redress for their injuries.Proposals to adopt stringent scientific rules of evidence thus implicate significant philosophical issues about the relation of evidence to belief and to practical action. The underlying objectives of the tort law system are not those of scientific practice, and each set of objectives has standards of evidence specific to it.Previous versions of this paper were read at the UCLA Law and Philosophy Discussion Group and at the Orange County Moral and Political Philosophy Discussion Group. We have benefitted from comments by Steve Munzer, Peter Aranella, Craig Ihara, Gary Watson, David Estlund, and Alex Rosenberg. A longer version of this paper is in preparation. In that paper we hope to develop some of the items merely sketched in this paper.     

我国应建立保释制度

我国建立保释制度有必要性与可行性。具体思路为:1、变革诉讼理论;2、制定统一的保释法;3、坚持扩大适用与限制适用相结合的原则,逐步推进保释的适用范围;4、保释权赋予法院;5、建立保释的相关配套措施。