利益关系的调整是构建和谐社会的重要基础

“构建和谐社会”是当前和今后一个相当长时期中国社会发展的主题。要实现这一目标,必须从政治、经济、文化等诸方面调整好各种利益关系,它已成为构建和谐社会的重要基础。     

论遏制我国特殊利益集团的制度建设

在我国经济体制转变过程中,制度冲突、制度缺失和制度执行失范等现象普遍存在,为特殊利益集团的衍生提供了可乘之机。特殊利益集团掠夺和侵害社会公共利益,引发社会利益结构的失衡,激化社会矛盾,而社会矛盾的本质和根源是制度矛盾。因此,必须通过加强制度创新建设来有效遏制特殊利益集团。     

中国—东盟自由贸易区的影响分析——经济利益与战略关系

中国-东盟自由贸易区是双边关系发展到一定阶段的产物,但同时又表达了双方的某种超越性经济利益的诉求。自由贸易区的框架安排说明其是一个渐进性的综合安排,其妥协因素将会影响自由贸易区效果的迅速释放。总体来看,自由贸易区建成将会促进双边经济相互依赖,但其对于双边关系的促进作用或许将下降。     

违法合同的效力判定路径之辨识

《合同法》第52条第5项及其司法解释对于纠正违法即无效的错误认识曾起到了历史性作用。但现有的学说及现行立法在就违法合同效力的判定路径上却存在着方向性的偏差,于司法实践并不具有真正的指导意义:区分民法内的强制规范与民法外的强制规范而异其效力,在我国并不可行;通过语义分析尚难以发现强制规范之所在;而将违法之法简单缩限为法律、行政法规上的效力性强制性规定,并不妥当,亦难以操作,且于价值及逻辑层面多有疑问;此外,将违法与损害社会公共利益予以并列,在逻辑上也有不合。故应将违法合同的效力判定纳入《合同法》第52条第4项,通过规范目的的发现及利益的衡量来最终确定违法合同的命运。     

知识产权公益诉讼制度研究

公益诉讼作为一种新的诉讼形式越来越普遍,然而相配套的制度建构却比较贫乏,这些问题也体现在对知识产权公共利益、国家利益的侵害上。文章对知识产权公益诉讼的内涵进行探索性的界定,以此为基础进一步分析知识产权公益诉讼的必要性和正当性,进而提出一些知识产权公益诉讼制度建构的建议。     

试论“后悔权”设立之法学证成

作为舶来事物,＂后悔权＂一经浮出水面,即遭受或赞或弹的命运。其中的质疑不无道理,但又有失偏颇。据此,厘清＂后悔权＂之真正意旨,区别相关权利,奠定对其讨论的正确基础实为必须且为必要。此外,＂后悔权＂作为一个货真价实的＂国际惯例＂,无理由将之拒之门外,但为避免＂水土不服＂的尴尬,其设立必须兼顾本土实际,即：一切从实际出发,设立中国特色的＂后悔权＂制度——＂有限后悔权＂制度。     

The New Neighborhood Policy of the EU: An Appropriate Response to the Arab Spring?

This article analyzes the extent, substance, and underlying objectives of the European Union's (EU) new neighborhood policy in response to the Arab Spring. It questions whether the new policy approach constitutes a major policy shift or is just “old wine in new wineskins.” The article discusses the causes for much continuity and limited change in the new policy from a neo-institutionalist perspective. It concludes that both continuity and change primarily result from constraints inherent to the EU. In particular, the interaction between the Commission and the Council shapes a policy that corresponds with the normative aspirations and realist interests of the EU but hardly with the needs and expectations of the partner states.     

Daring to Be Heard: Advertorials by Organized Interests on the Op-Ed Page of The New York Times , 1985-1998

Advertorials are a form of outside lobbying that organized interests use to influence policymakers and attentive publics. It is apparent from their popularity that organized interests consider them to be an effective form of political communication. This article analyzes 2,805 organized interest advertorials that appeared on the lower right quadrant of The New York Times op-ed page from 1985 to 1998. Advertorials take two broad forms: (a) image advertorials, which are paid messages by organized interests designed to create a favorable climate of opinion, and (b) advocacy advertorials, which are sponsored messages intended to win support for an interest's viewpoints on controversial issues. Typologies of advertorials (11 categories), organized interests (21 categories), corporate and noncorporate economic interests (29 categories), and policy content (28 categories) are used to document annually and over time who is sponsoring advertorials, what types of advertorials are being used, what interests avail themselves of advertorial campaigns, which issue areas are receiving attention, what images and policy messages are being communicated, which organizations sponsor the most advertorials, and the timing of such political advertising campaigns. We find over time an increasing number of advertorials, an increasing number and diversity of sponsoring interest organizations, an increasing trend toward advocacy advertorials, a continuing but declining sponsorship dominance by corporate interests, a shifting policy issue emphasis that corresponds to events in the political environment, and evidence that organized interests employ a variety of sponsorship strategies.     

Democracy and the multinationals

The relationship between western multinational corporations' perceived commercial interests and democratic quality in developing markets is more varied than habitually argued. While autocratic policy making and low-intensity democracy have been judged to provide benefits to investors, they are also increasingly recognized to generate features prejudicial to commercial operations. Many investment trends reflect the adverse impact of democratic limitations in developing markets. Multinational companies can be faulted less for a uniform effort to frustrate democratic improvements than for a failure to develop a coherent or proactive engagement in relation to the international democracy promotion agenda.