社会治理转型中的公共行政价值的回应与平衡

公共行政范式转换与社会治理范式变迁相生相伴,每一种社会治理范式实际上都在寻求回应与平衡效率、责任、公平等核心价值,只是在社会治理不同的发展阶段对某一种公共行政价值有所侧重而已.从公共行政价值多元交叉并存的视角来研究和把握社会治理的根本价值和目的,倡导效率、责任与公平等核心价值并重、统一、均衡的科学公共行政价值观,不仅有助于科学把握公共行政理论的发展规律和走向,破解工具性价值与目的性价值的悖论,也有助于社会治理持续均衡发展,从而更好地强化公共行政精神,实现公共利益.     

放宽法律的视界:乡村生活中村落法与国家法关系之解读--从两则材料谈开去

在中国农村社会 ,大量的村落法在实际上发挥着重要的作用 ,国家法以“法治”名义强行介入乡村是困难的 ,两者之间呈现出一种复杂深沉的张力 ,这是中国法治现代化进程中不可回避的现实问题。法学工作者应该放宽“法律”的视界 ,深入乡野 ,关注法运行的实然性 ,寻找真正解决问题的方法     

Silent citizenship among Asian Americans and Latinos: opting out or left out?

In his classic study, Who Governs?, Robert Dahl interpreted the patterns of political assimilation of ‘white ethnic’ immigrants and their children during the mid-twentieth century as a hopeful sign of the potential of democratic pluralism in the USA. While acknowledging that immigrant groups faced discrimination and structural barriers that might lead them to be silent, Dahl predicted that social mobility and assimilation would eventually erase these deficits in political participation among immigrants. Building from Dahl's analysis, we investigate the extent to which pluralism in the USA can and does work the same way for immigrants who are also racial minorities. We highlight factors that can lead these groups to become silent citizens, including lack of legal status, lower levels of political mobilization by institutions, and discrimination as structural impediments to minority participation. Our findings suggest that both resources as well as structural impediments structure the political behavior of Asian Americans and Latinos, determining whether they are vocal citizens or silent citizens.     

城市社区治理中软法作用研究

城市社区治理是我国社会基层治理重要组成部分。基层治理现代化和法治化离不开硬法与软法合力的作用。我国软法理论与实践起步较晚,软法在基层治理中独特作用没有得到充分重视和释放。充分认识软法的内涵、特征及相关理论基础,重新评估软法在基层自治中的特殊作用即完善社区治理法律体系、弥补社区治理硬法不足、有效保障社区自治实现。针对我国目前城市社区治理软法存在的主要问题,提出健全软法规范体系、协调软法与硬法关系、强化软法实施保障机制等建议,从而充分发挥软法在城市社区治理应有的作用。     

辩诉交易公正价值之重新审视

公正是司法的最高价值,司法公正具有相对性和多元性。辩诉交易构建于控辩对等的诉讼模式之上,众多相关制度确保了其客观与公正。同时,辩诉交易凸显了诉讼民主、体现了解纷中的效率价值、实现了公正与效率的均衡、确保了公正的最大化,内含着巨大的公正价值,具有旺盛的生命力,因此,借鉴国外先进的司法制度,构建中国的辩诉交易制度当无理念上之障碍。     

国际经济法理论的多元视角

当代国际经济法应该具有多元开放的法学视角和理论进路,例如,法律视角、经济视角、政治视角、历史视角、人权视角、哲学视角、发展视角、可持续发展视角,等等。Jackson的实用主义宪法制度分析、Petersmann的理想主义自由宪政分析、Qureshi的全球化多元综合法律分析为国际经济法学术领域的三种主要视角。国际经济法的理论多元标志着国际经济法学术开始走出理论的幼稚和贫困,迈向理论的成熟和繁荣,进而超越概念之争,进入理论之争,乃至开启范式之争。     

国际法的自由主义哲学基础

自由主义在西方国内政治、经济、法律领域有着广泛、深入的影响。其对调整国与国之间关系的国际法的产生、发展也起着重要的作用 ,自由主义所蕴涵的价值多元、宽容内核构成了国际法的哲学基础 ,而任何以单一价值观来改造国际法的行为都将是对国际法基础的动摇与破坏。     

Comment on Franz Von Benda-Beckmann, “anthropological approaches to property law and economics”

This comment deals with criticisms of law and economics analysis as they can be formulated from the point of view of an anthropologist. These criticisms are taken seriously. The author first addresses so-called defects of law and economics analysis which should be considered underdeveloped areas of the approach. Secondly, and more specifically, weaknesses of the property rights approach are taken up. In the author's view, they should be dealt with in future law and economics work. Finally, methodological issues are being addressed which, if not considered with circumspection, could impair the scientific integrity of the law and economics approach.     

政治体制改革的三重背景分析

政治体制改革的背景是一个动态的“力场”,既为其提供动力,也形成了政治体制改革的阻力,在不同的时空条件下,这些因素又发生着微妙的变化,甚至相互转化,对政治体制改革具有重大的影响和制约。     

The authoritarian logic of regulatory pluralism: Understanding China's new environmental actors

Over the last decade, Chinese citizens, judges, and prosecutors have started to take action against industrial pollution, pluralizing a regulatory landscape originally occupied by administrative agencies. Regulatory pluralism here has an authoritarian logic, occurring without the retreat of party‐state control. Under such logic, the party‐state both needs and fears new actors for their positive and negative roles in controlling risk and maintaining stability. Consequently, the regime's relation to regulatory pluralism is ambivalent, shifting between support and restriction. This prevents a development of a regulatory society that could bypass the regulatory state. Theoretically, this special edition argues for a subjective definition of regulation in a context of pluralism. Moreover, it finds that regulatory pluralism need not coincide with a decentring of regulation. Finally, it highlights how entry onto the regulatory landscape affects the non‐regulatory roles of new actors, creating unintended consequences for regulatory pluralism.