裁量基准的制度定位——以行政自制为视角

面对裁量基准在我国行政执法实践中的发展,亟待从制度层面对裁量基准的性质、功能和边界加以合理的定位。在行政自制的视角下,考察各地所推行的裁量基准实践,裁量基准在性质上应当被看作一种行政自制规范。它对裁量权正当行使的自我控制功能,主要是通过情节的细化和效果的格化技术,来达到对裁量权的限定、建构和制约。然而,裁量基准作为一种规则化的自制,亦有其难以克服的局限性,对此必须在制度设计上充分把握三个方面的平衡,即在羁束与裁量之间的平衡、规则与原则之间的平衡以及自制与他制之间的平衡。有必要倡导一种功能主义的行政自制观,以此推进中国行政法治的新发展。     

论香港与内地移交逃犯的先例模式

香港与内地在逃犯移交问题上长期处于无法可依且不对等的状态。先例模式从两地移交逃犯的现状出发,将遵循先例原则引入移交逃犯模式的构建中,以个案协商为基础,并赋予协商结果以先例效力。先例模式利用现有法律,实现事实移交。它是一个过渡的模式,为两地最终签订双边协议创造条件。先例模式的内容主要包括三个方面:先例的确立机制、先例的适用机制和谈判主体的构建。     

云南回族抗争历史现象透视

云南回族突出的抗争历史现象是由其强烈的抗争意识所驱动的.强烈抗争意识的形成同回族坎坷的历史命运紧密连在一起,既有主位的原因,也有客位的根源,归根到底是封建统治条件下民族歧视和民族压迫的结果.社会主义制度的建立,从根本上铲除了民族歧视和民族压迫的制度根源,然而,历史所造成并遗留下的民族隔阂乃至民族歧视的现象不可能在短时期内彻底消除,历史形成的各民族特殊的民族意识、民族心理、民族认知习惯等文化心理因素仍以相对稳定的形式影响着人们的生存方式和各民族间的交往关系.因此,回族的抗争历史现象仍在一定程度上存在并表现出来.分析其中原因,正视和解决存在的问题,有利于民族的团结、进步和发展.     

Social mobility in rural Russia, 1995–2003

Using panel survey data from three Russian villages, this article examines rural social mobility in post-communist Russia. The article finds that contemporary rural social mobility is different from that which existed during the Soviet period. During the Soviet period, rural social mobility was linked to changes in profession and the direction of mobility was primarily upward. In the post-Soviet period, rural mobility is linked to increasing income differentiation and inequality. In the post-communist period, both upward and downward social mobility have occurred. The article examines the characteristics of upwardly and downwardly mobile households. It then analyses the factors that affect mobility through regression analysis of human capital and behavioural models. The article concludes that household labour continues to have the single greatest causal effect on rural mobility.     

Truth and Justice, Inquiry and Advocacy, Science and Law

Abstract. There is tension between the adversarialism of the U.S. legal culture and the investigative procedures of the sciences, and between the law's concern for finality and the open‐ended fallibilism of science. A long history of attempts to domesticate scientific testimony by legal rules of admissibility has left federal judges with broad screening responsibilities; recent adaptations of adversarialism in the form of court‐appointed experts have been criticized as “inquisitorial,” even “undemocratic.” In exploring their benefits and disadvantages, it would make sense to look to the experience of other legal systems.