Distributive Justice Norms and Family Work: What Is Perceived as Ideal,What Is Applied,and What Predicts Perceived Fairness?

Members of married couples rated how ideal communal, exchange, and equality rules were for their marriages. They also reported on whether they and their spouses followed each norm in general in their marriages and in the domains of housework and child care. Both men and women considered a communal norm to be more ideal than the other norms and reported that they and their spouse followed a communal norm to a greater extent than an exchange or equality rule, both in general and in the domains of housework and child care. In addition, links between reports of actual division of labor in each domain, as well as reports of norm use, and perceived fairness of the division of family work were examined. Greater inequalities in the division of labor were linked to decreased perceptions of fairness. Controlling for reports of division of labor, women's reports of the self and of the spouse following a communal norm were linked with increased perceptions of fairness as were women's reports of the spouse following an equality rule. In contrast, and again after controlling for reports of division of labor, women's reports of the self following an exchange rule and men's reports of the self and of the spouse following an exchange rule were associated with greater perceived unfairness of the division of family work.     

再论地役权的从属性

地役权具有从属性，且为固有属性，而非立法政策“强加”的；地役权规范为强制性规范，在建筑物、土地所有权转让的场合，当事人不得约定地役权继续保留在地役权人之手；数个地役权并存于同一宗供役地的场合，先设立且已登记的地役权的效力优先；先设立却无登记的地役权，不能对抗后设立但已登记的地役权；至于先设立却无登记的地役权与后设立亦未登记的地役权之间的效力关系，应按照四项规则处理。     

论犯罪规定的正当化理论之缺失

犯罪规定的正当化理论在刑法学中至今仍无一席之地，犯罪规定的正当化问题或者湮没于刑法的机能之中，或者在刑罚的正当化理论中若隐若现，即使在罪刑法定主义的时代呼唤下，它也仅有微弱的回应。这是刑法裁判规范优先观念的产物，建立市民刑法，应树立行为规范优先的理念，重视犯罪规定的正当化问题，为此必须转变观念，必须反思法益之概念。     

Power Dynamics in an Experimental Game

We introduce a new experimental method for studying power. Drawing from multiple theoretical perspectives, we conceptualize power as relational and structural, as well as comprised of different forms through which basic human needs can be met. Thus, the method we introduce examines how, when faced with a particular need, people use multiple forms of power concurrently and within a “field of influence,” namely, the other players in a game. This enabled us to examine how one form of power is transformed into another and how power is transferred from one player to another through interaction, as well as to measure power as behavior, as the exercise of choice, as potential, and as outcomes. Two experiments using egalitarian start conditions and a survivable ecology demonstrated that participants used power to gain more power, creating inequality. Being the target of force made some players unable to “survive” in the local ecology. Theoretical and methodological issues in the study of power are discussed and the application of our game method to the study of power in other fields is considered.     

Does counter-mobilization contain right-wing populist movements? Evidence from Germany

Right-wing populist (RWP) movements have been on the rise in Western democracies. Outside of party politics, such movements regularly organize demonstrations against political elites and minority groups. At the same time, civil society coalitions have mobilized against these movements. Yet we know little about the effect of counter-demonstrations on RWP protest activities. We derive competing theoretical expectations from previous work. On the one hand, counter-mobilization reduces mobilization because the original movement is less likely to achieve its goals (expected utility/costs). On the other hand, clashes and standoffs between opposing movements facilitate mobilization through polarization and anger (identity/emotions). We empirically analyze movement–countermovement dynamics using a new city-level event dataset on street protests by the German Pegida movement and its opponents. In our quantitative analysis, we investigate how counter-mobilization is associated with the onset of Pegida protests, their intensity in terms of participant numbers, and their demobilization. Counter-mobilization does not prevent protest onset, but large counter-demonstrations are associated with larger subsequent Pegida protests, and violence against Pegida supporters reduces the likelihood that they will stop protesting.     

Who talks about what? Issue strategies across the party hierarchy

We combine the recent literature on issue competition with work on intra-party heterogeneity to advance a novel theoretical argument. Starting from the premise that party leaders and non-leaders have different motivations and incentives, we conjecture that issue strategies should vary across the party hierarchy. We, therefore, expect systematic intra-party differences in the use of riding the wave and issue ownership strategies. We test this claim by linking public opinion data to manually coded information on over 3600 press releases issued by over 500 party actors across five election campaigns in Austria between 2006 and 2019. We account for self-selection into leadership roles by exploiting transitions into and out of leadership status over time. The results show that party leaders are more likely than non-leaders to respond to the public's issue priorities, but not more or less likely to pursue issue-ownership strategies.     

对中级人民法院民事二审案件谈话程序公开的调研

中级人民法院审理民事二审案件多适用谈话程序。如何规范谈话程序并推进司法公开,是审判实践亟需解决的问题。本文分析了审判现状,从谈话程序的启动、告之、异议、审理规则、旁听规范几方面进行了研究论述,认为对谈话程序进行规范并具备一定的公开性,就能实现谈话程序的灵活性、效率性与公开开庭审理程序实现优势结合,功能互补。     

试论警察组织中群体规范的形成、作用与异化

本文对群体规范的概念、形成及警察群体规范的形成、功能和作用进行了初步的探讨，并在此基础上对社会群体规范悖谬与异化的的形成，警察群体本身具有的易腐性及其在社会转型期对规范悖离与异化、警察腐败的趋势与现象进行了尝试性的探索与研究。     

简析我国刑事诉讼法中的非必要规范

我国刑事诉讼法中存在四类非必要的规范:即无操作性的原则规范,未规定否定的法律后果而无实效性的规范;单纯申明法律普遍效力的规范;单纯申明法律责任的规范。这些规范的存在,是刑事诉讼在立法技术上存在问题的一种表现。     

法律与逻辑——对法律与逻辑关系的一种全面解读

本文主要对法律与逻辑关系进行了全面的探讨。对逻辑学和法学之间交叉性的一些问题进行了回顾和总结。首先,探讨了什么是“法律逻辑”,并重点介绍了我国学者较陌生的“规范逻辑”,将两者进行了比较;其次,对法理学和逻辑学都关心的“法律推理”问题进行了探讨,比较了“法律推理”和“司法推理”两者的异同,以及两大法系“法律推理”的特点和差异;最后,对饱受批判的“法律形式主义”进行了研究,指出应当辩证地看待“法律形式主义”的功与过。最后,作者结合我国的实际,认为:我们不能借口反对“法律形式主义”而忽视和否定逻辑在法律领域中的作用。