社会正义与制度建设

正义是社会制度的首要价值。然而,中国当代的正义存在一些缺损问题,即正义取向出现了偏差,形式正义与实质正义、算术正义与比例正义、交换正义与分配正义等正义形式出现了缺损。本文提出通过加强制度建设来改善正义缺损问题的现状,因为制度最基本、最重要的功能就是保障社会的公平正义。     

关于校园暴力的规劝——社区矫正施予青少年不良行为的可能性

校园暴力既是国际社会青少年犯罪的特殊类型,也是青少年受害的主要因素,它威胁着象牙宝塔的神圣和安全,也对处在心理生理发育期的青少年造成了极端负面的影响。对青少年不良行为施予社区矫正,既能立足于青少年犯罪的原因,发挥积极的教育作用,同时也能推进我国少年司法工作的发展。     

令人不适的法医影像对司法心证的影响探微

司法人员在审查案卷时,可能由于一些令人不适的法医影像而影响其客观、公正地履行职责。在现实中法医影像制作的不规范状况扩大了这种负面影响。而对这种负面影响的制约有赖于相应法律规范和证据规则的制定、制作人观念和态度的转变、制作方式的规范,以及司法人员相应素质的提高。     

The campaign dynamics of economic voting

This paper considers the relationship between election campaigns and the impact of economic evaluations on vote choice. The motivation is the standard expectation that the campaign generally serves to amplify the significance of economic considerations in the voter's calculus—to focus his/her attention on this “fundamental” element of the electoral decision. Drawing on survey data from ten national elections across four countries (Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) and applying both parametric and semi-parametric statistical techniques, the paper finds no support for this proposition. The paper reflects on the significance of this conclusion for work on political learning during election campaigns, the literature on economic voting, and the study of electoral behaviour more generally.     

马克思恩格斯的廉政思想

反腐倡廉问题关系到马克思主义政党和社会主义的前途命运。马克思恩格斯在创立和发展科学社会主义的过程中,在指导无产阶级政党的建设中,在关注巴黎公社革命特别是总结巴黎公社的经验教训中,对无产阶级政党和国家要反对腐败和实行廉洁政治的问题做了深刻论述,形成了反腐倡廉的基本思想。其基本观点是：腐败产生的根源是私有制,铲除腐败的根本途径在于消灭私有制,建立公有制;无产阶级政党的本性是大公无私的,无产阶级政权应当是廉价政府;由于党内外各种因素的影响,无产阶级政党内部也会出现不正之风和腐败现象,必须同不正之风和腐败现象作斗争;无产阶级取得政权以后要防止国家机关和公职人员由“社会公仆”变为“社会主人”。尽管马克思恩格斯对无产阶级政党和国家反腐倡廉建设只是提出一些大的原则和思路,却为后来马克思主义政党建设特别是马克思主义执政党的反腐倡廉建设奠定了思想理论基础。     

论美国的正当程序理念及制度对我国环境行政听证的启示--中美环境行政听证制度比较

美国联邦宪法的"正当程序条款"赋予了公民听证的权利,并在此基础上发展形成了一整套听证制度,环境行政听证制度经20世纪后半叶的不断发展也趋于完善,从而给予了公民充分参与环境决策以维护自身环境权益的机会和权利.相比之下,我国的环境行政听证才刚刚起步,有许多地方需要尽快完善.美国完善的环境行政听证制度可以为我们提供这方面的参考.     

对我国侵权行为法几个问题的探讨

从历史考察的视角,对我国侵权行为法的发展脉络作了一下回顾,同时在此基础上分析了我国侵权行为的现状,这有益于把握其中的问题,也为将来的发展完善打开了通路。     

State engagement with non-state justice: how the experience in Kyrgyzstan can reinforce the need for legitimacy in Afghanistan

Currently there is a question of whether and how Afghanistan should engage non-state councils of elders to resolve disputes. In order to harness their benefits (e.g. efficiency), control their abuses (e.g. occasional controversial resolutions), and stabilize the resolution of disputes, some have argued that formal links should be established between the state judicial system and non-state councils of elders in Afghanistan. Others argue that mere informal links between the two systems should be established. Still others suggest that prior models of state engagement in Afghanistan should be revived. In Kyrgyzstan, just 65 miles north of Afghanistan, the Tsarist, Soviet and post-Soviet administrations have used various methods to engage non-state councils of elders. Despite these vastly different attempts at controlling local dispute resolutions, elders independently resolved disputes outside of Tsarist and Soviet control and continue to resolve disputes outside of post-Soviet state control in Kyrgyzstan. This phenomenon highlights the need for legitimacy in any models of state engagement that are considered for Afghanistan. If, as observed in Kyrgyzstan, people do not use state-sanctioned local councils in Afghanistan, then their purposes may be frustrated. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the experience with state engagement in other parts of the world, policy makers in Afghanistan should also review the historical and contemporary experience with state engagement in Kyrgyzstan. As the need for legitimacy is reconsidered and applied to the design of models for Afghanistan, it may be more likely that those models will be used by more people in Afghanistan and that their purposes will be furthered.     

评判社会主义制度优越性的三个基本维度

如何评判社会主义的优越性,关系到能否正确认识中国共产党成立以来的历史。在评判和宣传社会主义制度的优越性时,要依循三个基本维度,即历史与现实相观照、理论与实践相结合、国内与国际相对比。     

Authoritarian legality and informal practices: Judges, lawyers and the state in Russia and China

To participate in the global economy authoritarian states are pressed to offer international business a legal order that protects the interests of investors, customers, and sellers, but the creation of a modern legal order threatens to undermine the leaders’ control of public life. An increasingly common way to resolve this dilemma, I argue, is developing formal legal institutions that appear to meet world standards, while using informal practices to maintain control over the administration of justice when needed. In this paper I show how the governments of post-Soviet Russia (with its hybrid or competitive authoritarian regime) and the fully authoritarian People’s Republic of China as well, have used this approach in their relations with judges and defense lawyers in their respective countries. The analysis underscores the utility of investigating informal practices along with the reform of formal legal institutions, especially in the context of transition.