正义：我国行政决策的理性诉求

作为行政管理活动的首要环节和重要基础,行政决策解决了政治资源的定位和分配,从而决定着行政管理活动的方向及方式取舍,并以其特有的权威引导和保证社会发展的方向。政治正义性与合法性的原理要求我国的行政决策必须坚持正义的理性诉求。但由于权力寻租的存在,监督机制的不健全以及行政决策的技术基础不够理想,我国部分行政决策的正义性明显不足。要增强我国行政决策的正义性,必须从根本出发,完善行政决策的制度基础,提高行政决策的技术基础,扩大行政决策的社会基础。     

经验法则与接近正义--以民事诉讼为进路

经验法则是法官依照日常生活中所形成的反映事物之间内在必然联系的事理作为认定待征事实根据的有关法则.它包括从一般的生活常识到关于一定职业技术或科学专业上的法则.经验法则具有盖然性程度的差异性和内容上的无限性,法官运用经验法则可以发现事实和应用法律,创造善的规则体系,更好地实现接近正义.     

刑法中的正当化行为与犯罪构成关系的理性思考

与大陆法系、英美法系均将刑法中的正当化行为置于犯罪构成体系之中的做法所不同的是 ,刑法中的正当化行为是游离于我国传统的耦合式犯罪构成体系之外的一个“活泼元素”。这样的关系 ,与现代刑事法治的精神不相契合 ,实有认真检讨和改进的必要。英美法系双层次犯罪构成模式为刑法中的正当化行为的纳入 ,尤其是超法规的正当化行为的充分展开 ,不仅提供了极其广阔的空间 ,而且因赋予其程序要件的色彩 ,从而突出强调了程序正义的价值 ,推动了宪法在刑事领域的司法化。因之 ,借鉴英美法系双层次犯罪构成的结构模式 ,吸纳我国传统犯罪构成体系中的合理成份 ,实现经验与理性的沟通 ,应当成为改造我国传统的耦合式犯罪构成体系的努力方向。     

我国反倾销行政诉讼程序制度研究

2 0 0 2年 1 1月 2 1日最高人民法院颁发的《最高人民法院关于审理反倾销行政案件应用法律若干问题的规定》的出台标志着自加入WTO以来 ,一直备受各界关注和争议的我国反倾销行政诉讼制度的基本确立。作为履行WTO的义务和加入议定书的承诺的这一制度已进入实际运作 ,对其中的若干重大问题进行探讨显得迫切而又必要。     

程序：以人为本

程序以人为本 ,这是人文主义精神在程序法治中的体现。程序应当体现对人的关爱 ,顺应人的理性发展 ,遵循程序自由原则。我们应当以“人”为基点看程序 ,程序的设置和运行中都应充满人文关怀。     

How the court made a federation of the EU

We analyze the European institutional integration that took place in the 1950s and 1960s as a two-stage process. Firstly, an explicitly political project aims at establishing a European political community. The project is abandoned in the mid-1950s and political integration stops. At that time, the institutions of the Union take the form of a confederation. In a second stage, because of the failure of the European political community, a legal process of integration driven by the European Court of Justice takes place. This second stage of unification is more centralizing and in effect leads to a federalization of the European institutional structure. The transformation of the political structure of the European Union thus appears to result from the actions and decisions of a legal entity, the European Court of Justice.      

Justice Beliefs in School: Distinguishing Ultimate and Immanent Justice

This paper combines two recent developments in just world research: the conception of belief in a just world (BJW) as a resource for coping and well-being in everyday life, and the distinction between two different facets of BJW, namely belief in immanent justice (BIJ) and belief in ultimate justice (BUJ). Moreover, these two aspects are adapted to the school context and educational psychology. Scales for measuring ultimate and immanent justice in schools were developed within a German pilot reform project with a sample of 1274 pupils. The two facets could be distinguished by means of factor analysis. The reliability of the two scales is satisfactory, and their validity is confirmed by their differential correlational patterns. Results show that not every form of BJW automatically functions as a coping resource. In fact, only BUJ is able to protect pupils' mental well-being, whereas immanent justice can actually jeopardize well-being. Similarly, BUJ is associated with the perception of solidarity and learning enjoyment in class, whereas BIJ is more closely associated with the experience of rivalry and competition in class. Finally, the socialization of the two justice beliefs is considered. The cross-sectional data provide some evidence to suggest that friendly and supportive parenting styles can promote BUJ, whereas strict parenting styles may further BIJ. More longitudinal research is needed to obtain further insights into these phenomena.     

解读新《刑事诉讼法》 推进司法鉴定制度建设

新《刑事诉讼法》对司法鉴定制度做了如下修改：纠正了＂鉴定结论＂不准确的提法,还原了司法鉴定之本质;删除了＂人身伤害的重新鉴定或者精神病医学鉴定由省级人民政府指定医院进行＂的规定,理顺了司法鉴定体制;明确了鉴定人应当出庭作证的范围,确立了鉴定意见的传闻排除规则;增强了鉴定人参与诉讼的权利保护;增设了专家辅助人制度,使鉴定意见的质证程序有望实质化。这些修改是司法鉴定程序立法的重大进步,然而鉴定人权利保障体系尚有待健全。     

重构公正行政复议程序制度 保障行政复议公正解决行政争议

反司法化定位下的现行行政复议程序过于简化与内部行政化,欠缺程序公正的基本制度要素,不利于公正解决行政争议。要提升行政复议解决行政争议的有效性,必须开展以提升程序公正性为重心的系列公正程序制度改革,将体现程序公正的基本要素引入行政复议中,在行政复议中确立公正程序的各项基本原则,切实保障申请人的各项程序权利,在此基础上完成正当行政复议程序制度重构,具体包括回避制度、复议案件公开审理制度、言词辩论制度、复议决定说明理由制度等。     

Electronic evidence: A proposal to reform the presumption of reliability and hearsay

There is a general concern amongst judges, lawyers and legal scholars that evidence in digital format is not to be trusted, given that it can be altered and manipulated with ease. Some jurists have called for a UN Convention on matters relating to the authentication and admissibility of electronic evidence. It is debatable whether such a Convention is necessary, but guidance of an international nature might be welcome, providing that any such guidance remains guidance, and does not ossify into legal requirements that fail to take into account the dynamic and constantly developing changes in information technology. In any event, the accuracy of the presumption in England & Wales that a computer is in order at the material time is highly debatable, and it is suggested that this presumption ought to be reformed.