完善股东大会制度与中小股东权益保障

中小股东是公司的大多数投资主体,也是组成资本市场的基本要素。实践证明,只有保护所有投资主体权益的市场,才能给予投资者安全感和信心。完善股东大会制度需要从表决权制度、强化中小股东的程序性权利二方面入手,限制大股东权利,保障中小股东的合法权益。     

论布雷顿森林机构表决权集中制度的改革

布雷顿森林机构的表决权集中制度可以弥补投票权分配制度的不足。但现行的表决权集中制度问题不少,改革时可以适当增加要求全体通过的事项;降低特定多数通过的比例要求,有效地运用和发展双重多数通过制;明确协商一致的内涵和外延,限制它的保留和解释,明确和提高它的法律地位,并作为表决权集中制度的常规和先导;引入公司治理中关于保护中小股东利益的做法,如实行累积投票制等。     

有限公司股东出资争议救济分析

有限责任公司凭股东之间的互相信任达到资产集合的目的，这就是公司是财产集合体中的人合性因素，股东的信赖利益又源于各个股东都出了资，股东的投资利益和投资风险都与公司绑在了一块，当部分股东没有出资、出资不实、出资不到位、抽回出资时，他对公司的承担责任的就相应减少、但他在公司获得的利益却保持不变甚至相应增加，其他股东感觉不公平，于是就造成了许多因出资引发的争议。没有出资股东对已经出资股东的五种不公平情形，其中最重要不是分红，而是获取公司高管的机会，对此的争议救济方法主要包括：各股东按照公司章程或者出资协议的规定行使股权，不能达成协议的，各股东仍然应按照原来股权范围行使股权，要求未出资和未完全出资的股东限期出资，未出资的股东暂停其表决权、知情权、参与公司管理权和暂停担任公司高管职务，要求减少未完全出资的股东的表决权，减少后的比例与其已出资占应出资的比例相当，要求暂停未完全出资股东担任公司高管职务，减少未完全出资股东担任公司高管职务的数量，减少的数量与其已出资比例相当，除了公司高管之外，该股东推荐（或者委派）担任公司高层管理人员的数量也应相应减少。     

Grey Power: Towards a Political Economy of Older Voters in the UK

The impact of age on voting behaviour and political outcomes has become an issue of increasing interest, particularly in the UK. Age divides in voter turnout and political preferences have led to claims that age is the ‘new class’. In this article, we contrast existing ‘cultural backlash’ and political economy explanations of the age divide in politics, and challenge the view that older people are predominantly ‘left behind’, culturally or economically. We show that older people have distinct material interests, related to housing wealth and pensions’ income, that are visible in their political preferences. We argue for the development of a new political economy of age.     

The distorting effects of racial animus on proximity voting in the 2016 elections

While the use of racial appeals by the 2016 Trump campaign is indisputable, researchers are actively debating their precise role in influencing voter behavior in the election. We seek to expand upon existing research which finds that racial animus electorally benefited the Trump campaign. We examine to what extent those benefits also materialized for GOP candidates down-ballot and whether racial animus distorted ideological proximity voting in the 2016 election. We find that racial animus among voters helped Republicans at multiple ballot levels and that higher levels of racial animus distorted spatial voting among voters ideologically closest to the Democratic candidate.     

社会公众股类别表决的法理基础——用比较的方法分析

本文首先指出我国目前所谓的“分类表决”不太规范,应称之为“社会公众股类别表决”,以有利于公司法在此基础上构建我国统一的类别表决制度。然后分析了国外及港台的类别表决制度的法理基础,最后用比较的方法分析了我国社会公众股类别表决制度的法理依据及其利弊。     

论投票权征集制度中的代理权

本文共分三个部分第一部分总结了投票权征集制度中的代理权不同于一般代理权的特征;第二部分在第一部分的基础上进一步分析了投票权征集制度中的代理权不同于一般代理权的特殊权利义务内容;第三部分又在第二部分的基础上,对我国在投票权征集方面的立法提出了三点具体的建议。     

论公民代理行为的性质及其法律适用

诉讼活动中公民代理行为具有合同性和劳务性。取得劳动报酬权是宪法所赋予公民的基本人权———劳动权的重要内容。公民代理行为由宪法以及体现其分配原则的劳动法和合同法来调整。任何法律和政策的制定都不可以剥夺公民的劳动权及其劳动报酬权 ,否定公民代理人行为的劳务性 ,将它们视为一种无偿劳动的做法 ,是在事实上违背了宪法所确定的“按劳分配”的社会主义分配原则 ,是对劳动者劳动权及其劳动价值的一种否定 ,也不符合合同法的基本精神。     

Parliamentary Voting Procedures in Comparison

Increasingly, scholars of legislative politics propose comparative analyses of parliamentary voting behaviour across different countries and parliaments. Yet parliamentary voting procedures differ dramatically across parliamentary chambers and ignoring these differences may, in the extreme, lead to meaningless comparisons. This paper presents a first glimpse at a comprehensive data collection effort covering more than 250 parliamentary chambers in 176 countries. Focusing on European legislatures it assesses what explains the differences in the rules among chambers. It is found that incentives linked to MPs’ visibility contribute to explain the transparency of the adopted voting procedures.     

Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React

Legislators claim that how they explain their votes matters as much as or more than the roll calls themselves. However, few studies have systematically examined legislators’ explanations and citizen attitudes in response to these explanations. We theorize that legislators strategically tailor explanations to constituents in order to compensate for policy choices that are incongruent with constituent preferences, and to reinforce policy choices that are congruent. We conduct a within‐subjects field experiment using U.S. senators as subjects to test this hypothesis. We then conduct a between‐subjects survey experiment of ordinary people to see how they react to the explanatory strategies used by senators in the field experiment. We find that most senators tailor their explanations to their audiences, and that these tailored explanations are effective at currying support—especially among people who disagree with the legislators’ roll‐call positions.