Smokescreen Politics? Ratcheting Up EU Emissions Trading in 2017

The reform of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) adopted in November 2017 was surprisingly strong, given the previous opposition from central member‐states like Poland and key stakeholders like the energy‐intensive industries. The carbon price has also increased substantially since then. To explain why such major reform was possible, we present several findings with wider relevance. Importantly, all the actors pushing for a more ambitious reform benefitted from having a central, “second‐best” mechanism in place—the Market Stability Reserve (MSR)—which could be further tightened. By focusing cancelation on allowances in the MSR and taking place only after 2023, policy entrepreneurs managed to make the distribution of costs obscure and diffuse, whereas the benefits (a probable higher carbon price and related greater auctioning revenues for member‐states) were more specific and closer in time. That is what we call “smokescreen politics.”     

Multiple Streams in Hawaii: How the Aloha State Adopted a 100% Renewable Portfolio Standard

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are an important policy tool for reducing carbon emissions and advancing the global shift toward renewable energy. As the U.S. federal government backs away from commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, subnational governments play an increasingly important role in mitigating climate change. In June 2015, Hawaii became the first state in the United States to adopt a 100% RPS. Through understanding the conditions that gave rise to Hawaii’s RPS, policy actors will be better informed as they navigate policy processes in other states and jurisdictions. This study uses Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to explore the policy process that led to Hawaii’s 100% RPS. Data were collected during the summer of 2016 via interviews with 25 key policy actors and informants in Hawaii. Expectations based on the MSF are confirmed, and the results suggest factors that might be included or explored in future studies of RPS adoption.     

守正、发展与创新:“十四五”时期医疗保障的完善思路

人口结构、就业形态、新时代的健康政策与脱贫攻坚任务、技术发展等宏观环境,为“十四五”时期医疗保障的发展提供了机遇也提出了挑战。立足“十一五”到“十三五”医疗保障从无到有、从制度全民覆盖到实践全民覆盖、待遇水平持续提升、各项机制跨越式发展等发展脉络,“十四五”时期医疗保障的发展思路应定位于守正、发展与创新。第一,坚守公平共享与切实保障的发展理念;第二,回应健康需求与不平衡、不充分的医保制度现状,在待遇保障、筹资机制、支付方式、基金监管等方面补短板、强弱项;第三,直面新形势的新挑战,在新业态人员参保、大病保障、医疗保障与公共卫生资金统筹衔接等方面实现创新与突破。目标是在“十四五”时期实现一个全民享有、公平适度、法治规范、高效便捷、协同联动的医疗保障制度。     

论奸淫幼女犯罪的"明知"--与苏力教授商榷

奸淫幼女犯罪在主观方面必须具备“明知”和“故意”,即行为人主观方面必须明知奸淫的对象是不满14周岁的幼女。我国刑法中没有严格责任犯罪,奸淫幼女犯罪在理论上也不宜实行严格责任。完全不考虑男性行为人主观方面的故意和明知,仅以“幼女自愿的意思表示在法律上无效”为由就认定强奸罪成立,这是典型的客观归罪。     

The Enjoyment of Rights and Freedoms: A New Conception of the 'Ambit' under Article 14 ECHR

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied by the UK judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998, is in danger of becoming as 'parasitic' as it is often described. Judges have inappropriately narrowed the scope of the 'ambit' of other Convention articles, and thus limited the number of claims to which Article 14 can apply, by defining it according to considerations more properly weighed in a justification analysis incorporating proportionality. The emerging approach departs from Strasbourg jurisprudence, and fails to give full effect to the language and intent of Article 14. This trend need not continue. This article begins the process of fashioning a new conception of the ambit of Convention articles: one that could change the fortunes of Article 14 cases in the UK, but that flows naturally from the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, and gives effect to the spirit of the HRA.     

Are Children's Best Interests Really Best? ZH (Tanzania) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Although the Supreme Court's decision in ZH (Tanzania) is an important one, as this note explains, it is less novel than many suppose – and is in some ways disappointing. By stressing the importance of immigrant children's best interests, it fails to use this opportunity to promote their Convention rights effectively.     

Russia,the death penalty,and Europe: the ambiguities of influence

Studies of capital punishment worldwide investigate how international influence affects the death penalty. We analyze European influence on the death penalty in Russia over the imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet periods, using two parameters: the changing mechanisms of influence in each period and the death penalty's significance in the broader spectrum of punitive violence. On the first parameter, in the tsarist period, European influence on Russian policy was “productive” – exercised through prestige, moral suasion, and “diffusion.” In the Soviet period, European influence was blocked. In the post-Soviet period, European influence is coercive, as the Council of Europe has unsuccessfully sought to compel Russia to abolish its death penalty. On the second parameter, the death penalty in Russia has always been only one of many forms of state-sanctioned punitive killing. In consequence, the Council's involvement in Russia's death penalty has produced an incoherent policy outcome and has entangled the Council in Russia's authoritarian politics. Russia thus exemplifies the hazards of external involvement in death penalty abolition.     

Redfearn v UK: Political Association and Dismissal

In Redfearn v UK the European Court of Human Rights examined the question whether dismissal for membership of a political party is compatible with freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court endorsed a strong commitment to multi‐party democracy and protection of employees against the domination of the employers. This note discusses the judgment and its implications for UK law, looking at three key issues: first, whether the law of unfair dismissal provides effective protection against action that poses a threat to the enjoyment of Convention rights; second, the grounds under which an employer may justify the lawfulness of a dismissal that interferes with a Convention right; third, the available remedies against the employer when there is a breach of a Convention right.