试论我国体育冠名权及其法律规制

2008年北京奥运成功举办,国内体育热潮空前高涨;赛后“鸟巢”推出PPP融资模式（Private-Public Partnership）转让冠名权,学界再度关注体育冠名权之法律规制。在体育法学中,冠名权、体育冠名权是一个层级清晰的属种概念链条。而从整个法律体系或权利体系的维度来看,体育冠名权仍是一个较新型的权利。在实践中,权利定性的模糊亦成为体育产业开发和应用的瓶颈,并导致近年来我国体育市场大量冠名纠纷因缺乏充分的法律依据而无法得到有效调整。     

The Alien Child’s Best Interest Ignored: When Notions of Gendered Parenthood Meet Tightening Immigration Policies

ABSTRACT

This article investigates how arguments about the “child’s best interest” are constructed in court decisions on asylum and family reunification in Finland. The article brings together two strands of scholarship that have so far been rather separate from each other, namely that of the literature on family reunification and feminist family studies. Analysis shows that the best interest of the child is insufficiently addressed and other arguments sideline the evaluation of child’s best interest. Gender has an impact as the best interest of the child seems to play a more significant role in relation to motherhood than it does in relation to fatherhood. In general, the court did not deem motherhood or fatherhood central to the child’s development as such, but rather as something that became central if it could not be performed properly due to other reasons than separation. Considerations such as ties to either Finland or the country of origin, as well as the income requirement, can become factors that override the potential separation from a parent. Finally, the results are also compared to the child’s best interest evaluation in out-of-home placement cases from the same courts. Our analysis shows a stark contrast between these two types of cases. We show that whenever a child’s case falls under immigration law, even when simultaneously being handled within the framework of child protection, the main deciding factor is not the best interest of the child. Alien affairs are decided based on—almost solely—factors other than the child’s best interest, while the same Supreme Administrative Court rules on child welfare cases based on a very different interpretation of child’s best interest.     

隐藏在行政解释背后的政策裁量:概念、定位与功能

现有研究承认公共政策介入行政执法和司法职能的事实,但鲜少有研究关注公共政策在法律解释中的功能。“吐槽医院被拘案”为讨论政策裁量在行政解释中的功能角色提供了契机。学理研究显示,行政与政策之间的相似性与现代行政国家的行政效率诉求促使行政机关实施政策裁量。我国的行政解释过程背后蕴涵着复杂的利益纠纷,为政策裁量提供了合适的研究论域。政策裁量的实质是在行政解释过程中进行利益衡量,以便于解决行政解释过程中的各类争端,同时引导行政解释结果适应社会发展方向。政策裁量内容对于行政解释结论具有正反双重影响。     

The Culture of Interest: A Proposed Addition and Revision of the Three‐Culture Model

Negotiation and conflict resolution theorists have classified world cultures according to three types for the purpose of describing and predicting some of the ways in which individuals and groups within broad, geographically based cultural groups behave in conflict and negotiation‐related situations. These three broad categories, called “cultural syndromes,” have described these cultures according to the relative value they place on these three concerns: honor, face, and dignity. Based on our examination of the literature on the cultural dimensions of negotiation and conflict management, our own practice, and an analysis of literature and practice pertaining to the place and utility of the honor, face, interest, and dignity attributes within and between cultural groups , we propose a reformulation of this typology. Our reformulation would replace the broad “dignity” category with a new category that we call “interest,” which we believe better characterizes Northern European and North American cultures. We also argue that a cultural orientation toward dignity is universal and not geographically unique and is thus shared by all three cultures. This new formulation, we believe, more accurately characterizes the global range of orientations toward negotiation and conflict resolution and would, if adopted, help scholars and practitioners better understand culturally divergent conflict orientations and behaviors as well as the ramifications of such differences for negotiation and conflict resolution practice.     

从冲突走向合作:政府与民众的利益关系解析——以浙江省青田县滩坑移民为例

政府与民众的关系是政治领域的永恒主题。多少王朝的兴替,多少政权的更迭,都与此相关,都由此决定。本文试从利益的视角,民众的心态与诉求,政府的行事与作为,解析市场经济条件下政府与民众的关系,如何从冲突走向合作。     

绑架问题与日朝关系

最近几年,由于日本和朝鲜在绑架日本人问题上严重对立,使得原本紧张的两国关系更是雪上加霜。日朝两国在绑架问题上坚持各自立场,最根本的分歧在于双方在政治、安全和战略利益方面的巨大差异。日本方面热炒绑架问题,可谓是一石两鸟。日本以防范"来自朝鲜的威胁"为由,不断强化日美同盟和增加军事实力,使军事能力在国家发展战略中的位置和作用不断提升。同时,绑架问题还是日方手中最为重要的筹码,在日朝关系正常化谈判中可以与朝方抗衡,甚至可以对冲朝方提出的"清算殖民统治的历史,进行赔偿"的要求,争取谈判主导权。     

公益行政诉讼模式的理论分析与制度化建议

公益行政诉讼模式可分为公诉模式与私诉模式.公诉模式包括检察机关作为起诉人的典型公诉模式和特定公益性社会组织作为起诉人的未来公诉模式.检察机关的典型公诉模式为现阶段实际可行形态.在检察行政公益诉讼中,检察机关处于“行政公诉人”地位,依法行使有关监督和诉讼职权.私诉模式包括公民提起的典型私诉模式和经依法登记的社会组织提起的...     

修法背景下我国独立体育仲裁制度的设立

现有的国际和国内体育争端解决体系基本都体现为以国际单项体育联合会及各国协会、独立体育仲裁机构(国际体育仲裁院或国内独立体育仲裁机构)、国内法院为主体的三层递进式架构。在我国,由于独立体育仲裁机制长期缺位,导致对内体育争端解决的专业性和法律效力不足,加之对外与国际争端解决机制的衔接不畅,难以公平、高效地解决体育争端,甚至造成了国内争端的国际化。《体育法》的修订为完善体育仲裁机制提供了契机,其中独立体育仲裁制度的设立应以体育自治为基础,建设完善的体育仲裁机制,通过设立中国体育仲裁委员会,进一步整合单项体育协会的内部仲裁机制,保障仲裁裁决一裁终局的效力,明晰仲裁范围,与国际体育争端解决机制形成平行且竞争的协同关系。     

公益诉讼原告主体范围之扩张

公益诉讼法律化后的宏大法律图景未能在行动中的实践成为可视的制度实在,公益诉讼法律条款基本处于休眠状态。主要原因在于立法者推崇实用主义和渐进式功利主义的改革路线和利益导向机制,严格限定公益诉讼的主体范围,将大量主体阻隔于法院大门之外,割裂协调有序的公益诉权主体链条,致使公益诉讼无法实效发挥制度机能。公益诉讼的制度化或者再制度化可将权利生成和整体正义作为指引公益诉讼精细化发展和长远性发展的基本功能导向,适当开放公益诉讼通道,建构行政机关、检察院、社会组织和公民个人的多元互补的原告主体体系,并在现有法律框架内务实而理性地探求主体扩张的合理路径。     

利益衡量在税法中的应用——以个人所得税为视角

利益衡量是指对发生冲突的各种利益进行估量后,考虑应置重于哪一方利益的一种思考方式。在税收领域,国家与纳税人、纳税人与纳税人、追求社会利益最大化与维护私人财产权以及税法与其他法律之间冲突的协调是税法的重要课题。广泛的利益冲突为利益衡量在税法中的应用提供了契机,利益衡量为探讨税法中各利益主体之间利益的平衡协调提供了一种方法。