高考招生:从无区别对待到参与平等——对录取分数地区(民族)差异的宪法考量

高考招生的无区别对待,即确立一个中立标准———考试分数来决定学生是否录取,虽然能够根除故意歧视,但不能消除事实歧视。而以消除事实歧视为目的的补偿平等、优先录取,只是特殊情况下采取的特殊措施,不具有普遍意义。高考招生平等保障,应是与正义社会相契合的参与平等,社会各基本派系(如民族、地域)都应有适当比例的合格考生接受高等教育。这意味着,当无区别对待招生损害了正义社会的基本要求,民族、地域因素在高考招生中就发挥重要的作用。     

断裂的传统:清末废科举对宪政改革的影响

科举,作为整合传统中国的文化教育、官吏选拔、精英政治的制度中枢,于1905年清末新政中一朝被废。废科举之后,沟通传统教育与传统政治的桥梁断裂了,士绅阶层出现巨大分化,官僚体系中的书生群体被军人集团取而代之。清末宪政改革的失败,自废科举时起,便埋下了伏笔。     

从民族认同到公民身份——现代民族国家的社会整合与多元稳定

现代民族国家的治理面对多元文化和全球化的双重挑战,实现多元社会的整合与稳定是民族国家必须面对的问题。哈贝马斯将其交往行动理论向政治哲学领域推进的过程中倡导话语政治与商谈民主。借用哈贝马斯对民族和民族国家的解读,解析公民身份与宪法爱国主义,有助于解决民族国家内部蕴含着的普遍主义与特殊主义之矛盾、共和主义与民族主义之张力。     

Las competencias urbanísticas y la planificación metropolitana en el estado autonómico español y en el federalismo brasileño

This article makes a comparative analysis between the Spanish and Brazilian Urban Law, from the perspective of territorial and urban planning. Taken the basis of the constitutional rules that distribute powers to public authorities of both countries, and also the main laws that regulate the matter, as the case of RD 2/2008 of 20 June, approving the revised Land Law (TR/08, in Spain) and the Statute of the Cities (Law No. 10.257, f June 21, 2001 in Brazil). Besides that, highlight some differences between countries, such as the structure of the States —Spanish Parliamentary Monarchy and Brazilian Federal Republic— that is not an impediment to enable countries to use the legal constructions of the other country to improve its own system, especially in the metropolitan issue.     

Don't Mention the War: The Court of Appeal,the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland

Despite the vast transitional justice scholarship relating to prisoner release, amnesties and prosecutions when conflicts end, there is a significant gap in practice and academic literature regarding wrongful convictions. Uniquely amongst post‐conflict societies, Northern Ireland has a body for investigating miscarriages of justice, albeit one designed for ‘ordinary’ appeals. In the absence of a formal truth‐recovery process, criminal appeals are becoming a proxy for addressing the role of the state during ‘The Troubles,’ as well as remedying individual injustices. This article examines the approach of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal during the conflict. It charts the developments in its decision‐making following the cease‐fires and the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It concludes that the current system is unsatisfactory as it ignores the effects of the conflict on the appeal process and offers no insights into the role of the Court during the conflict. Alternative models are suggested.     

韩日独岛争端及其借鉴意义

中国面临的岛屿争端与独岛争端有诸多相似之处。同样具有诸多重要价值的岛屿,同样存在法理之争,二战后遗留问题,一方实际控制且拒不承认存在争议,同样对海洋划界存在影响等。从韩日独岛的博弈中,总结分析韩国和日本围绕独岛的相关条约、主张及应对策略,从而为中国岛屿争端提供借鉴意义。     

Distrust as a hindrance to democratic governance in South Korea

This article focuses on the concept of trust and its implications for democratic governance in South Korea. Trust is an elusive concept that is often discussed using such synonyms as confidence, trustworthy, reliance, or anticipation of goodwill. Trust in interpersonal relations is different from trust in institutions. The case of South Korean politics and administration shows that the absence of trust hampers the process of building a mature democratic society and hinders the development of democratic governance. The article concludes by stressing the need to enhance trust in society, government, policy‐makers, and public administrators.     

The Supreme Court and Issue Attention: The Case of Homosexuality

Previous studies have shown that a small number of Supreme Court decisions that “rearrange[d] the … distribution of political benefits” have drawn the media's attention to the underlying issues involved in those cases. This article provides an additional test of that empirical claim, examining the effects of the Supreme Court's gay rights cases on media coverage of homosexuality from 1990 to 2005. The data indicate that Supreme Court decisions that expanded the scope of gay rights increased coverage of homosexuality in both The New York Times and USA Today, while cases that affirmed the existing scope of gay rights had no such effect.     

Media Coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court: How Do Journalists Assess the Importance of Court Decisions?

Agenda-setting theory is central to understanding the connection between media and American government. Indeed, legislative and executive branches of American government are often characterized by their publicity-seeking behavior. This is not true of the judicial branch. However, the importance of media coverage is magnified for the United States Supreme Court because, lacking the public affairs mechanisms of the other two branches, the Court is dependent on media dissemination of information about its decisions. Despite this important role, little is known about what attracts media to cover Supreme Court cases. We ask what case characteristics attract media attention. We examine the effect of case variables on general media coverage of Court decisions (a concept we call “newsworthiness,” measured by whether mention of a given case decision appears on the front page of the New York Times) and on inclusion of a case on a list of legally significant cases over time (a concept we call “legal salience,” measured by the appearance of a case in the Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the Supreme Court). Examining cases over a 54-year period, we identify characteristics of cases appearing in either the New York Times or the CQ Guide or both. We conclude media news values may not always lead to coverage of the most legally salient cases, but some overlap indicates several cues used to judge immediate newsworthiness of cases stand the retrospective evaluation of legal significance.

[Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Political Communication for the following free supplemental resources: issue area matrices and predicted probabilities of case characteristics.]     

刑事诉讼专家辅助人出庭的观点争议及其解决思路

我国2012年修改的《刑事诉讼法》和《民事诉讼法》对“有专门知识的人”的规定相当简略,尤其是其出庭“适用鉴定人的有关规定”表述．不仅存在“有专门知识的人”是作为专家证人还是专家辅助人之争论．而且还引发是否有必要界定为中立的鉴定人诉讼地位之分歧。基于此．“有专门知识的人”参与法庭是否需要准入限制、法庭如何行使审查权限以及是否适用回避制度、其权利义务如何确定、如何在法庭上进行质证、其质证的效力如何以及在法庭上应安排何种位置等问题需要理论予以澄清．而理论需要结合我国司法制度与诉讼制度的要求及其功能作出具有规范意义的诠释．