论我国现代远程网络教育存在的问题及对策

随着一个全新的网络教育时代的到来，我国现代网络教育的格局已露端倪。然而目前现代远程网络教育在我国的继续发展和推广，却不断遭遇瓶颈。现代远程网络教育的本质特征在赋予网络教育时代优势的同时，也造成了现代远程网络教育的先天不足。因此，发展我国的现代远程网络教育根本思路，在于找到适合我国国情、适合自身特点的发展道路。     

冲突正义与实质正义间的冲突及衡平

法律旨在创设一种正义的秩序,法律与正义相伴随,同样,作为法律体系组成部分的冲突法与正义也是一种须臾不可分离的关系。冲突法并非仅仅追求冲突正义而不关注实质正义。其实,冲突正义与实质正义的关系也并不是相互抵触的,其所追求和实现的价值目标可谓是殊途同归。而且,尽管在20世纪末以前传统的冲突正义仍然保持其主导地位,但随后实质正义已经明显地渗透到冲突正义的思想之中,因而呈现出了冲突正义向实质正义的嬗变和发展之趋势。但是这一趋势并不表明传统的冲突法规则因为要追求实质正义而被舍弃,其价值至今仍然不能被完全否定,且冲突正义与实质正义之间的冲突也是完全可以得到衡平的。     

性权利与婚姻的冲突与衡平

婚姻是对性的某种束缚,配偶权与性自主权之间存在固有的张力和冲突。平衡配偶权与个人性权利的关系,不仅要考虑到个体的自由,也需要捍卫婚姻的合理价值。为此,强化配偶间的忠实义务、同居义务的同时,对非婚性行为、婚外性行为适度宽容和规范,改革离婚法,以促进个体的性权利的实现。     

《唐律》别籍异财之禁探析

禁止别籍异财是中国古代法律规范家族财产、维护家族制度的一项重要规定，但长期以来人们往往将其视作一个整体，忽视别籍和异财的相对独立性及其相互关系。根据《唐律》和其他原始资料，我们可以看到别籍和异财实际上是两个问题而又紧密联系，法律禁止的重点是别籍而不是异财。     

Bagehot Smiling: Gordon Brown's ‘New Constitution’ and the Revolution that Did Not Happen

The MPs expenses scandal that erupted in May 2009 has certainly rekindled interest in the next stage of constitutional reform and democratic renewal in Britain. This article examines how Gordon Brown's tenure as Prime Minister has differed from Tony Blair's in relation to the ‘new politics’ narrative. It argues that despite his long‐term personal commitment to major constitutional reforms, the role of crises in recalibrating the political opportunity structure and the manner in which electoral incentives can alter elite attitudes to institutional change that Brown's tenure can be characterised by optimism followed by timidity. Gordon Brown may have flown a few kites in relation to a written constitution, electoral reform, English devolution and the future of the House of Lords but he has left things far too late for a ‘constitutional moment’. Brown may have the political inclination but he lacks the capacity to deliver far‐reaching reform; Cameron is likely to have the capacity but not the inclination.     

SEX EDUCATION LEFT AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE SCHOOL DOOR: STRICTER REQUIREMENTS FOR PARENTAL OPT‐OUT PROVISIONS

Current state law creates the risk that, if sex education is not provided to a child in public school, no similar instruction will be given to the child. Legislatively enacted opt‐out provisions give parents broad control over their child's education by granting them the option to have their child excused from any sex education requirements within a public school's curriculum. Through public school sex education, professionals provide youth information aimed at protecting them from the dangers of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). A stricter statutory opt‐out provision should be enacted by state legislatures that only allows parents to excuse their child from sex education after a parent attends a 90‐minute STD prevention course and receives the instructional material used in the school's sex education curriculum. Parents should be provided up‐to‐date information and a structural framework designed by the school to encourage them to discuss with their child the many sexual issues addressed within a school's sex education curriculum.     

Free Expression,Pre‐Crime and Counter‐Terrorism Legislation

This article examines the Counter‐Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and how this new piece of legislation undermines fundamental human rights, including those protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It considers in particular how the new act criminalises behaviour with a wide sweep, to include behaviour that is not in itself criminal, but might be indicative of future criminal intent. As a result, the act restricts the right to freedom of speech and to liberty in a manner that is neither necessary nor proportionate.     

Why Right‐Leaning Populism has Grown in the Most Advanced Liberal Democracies of Europe

Immigration and new class divisions, combined with a growing anti‐elitism and political correctness, are often used as explanations for the strong gains for right‐leaning populist parties in national elections across Europe in recent years. But contrary to what we might assume, such parties have been very successful in the most developed and comprehensive welfare states, in nations—such as the Nordic countries—with the best scores on economic equality and social inclusion and long established political and judicial institutions enjoying a high degree of popular legitimacy. As argued in this article, this seems to happen because a duopoly of the centre‐left and centre‐right political establishment has kept issues such as immigration and new class divisions off the public agenda and hence paved the way for right‐leaning ‘disruptor’ populist parties with an anti‐immigration agenda in times of increasing immigration.     

The Quiet Revolution? The Labour Party and Welfare Conditionality

Labour's 2017 general election manifesto contained a pledge to ‘end the punitive sanctions regime’ in the British welfare state. Whilst the specific implications of this pledge were not elaborated, such a policy would nevertheless constitute a profound break with a welfare consensus spanning over twenty years. The depth of the suggested changes on welfare are also evident in the scale of reform proposed to disability benefits, as well as plans—confirmed in August 2018 by the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell—to pilot universal basic income. Collectively, these policies would seemingly be deeply at odds with public opinion on the benefits system, which over the course of the last two decades has significantly hardened. Yet despite the seemingly radical and controversial nature of the policy, it received very little media or public attention during the election campaign. This article explores Labour's ‘quiet revolution’ on welfare, examining whether Labour's new welfare approach is indeed a bold attempt to reshape public opinion on welfare or, alternatively, a mostly pragmatic reaction to changing social attitudes. The argument presented is that whilst there are persuasive explanations that Labour is responding to a change in the public mood, there is also evidence of a more ambitious goal at stake: the aim of reshaping, not simply responding to, public opinion on the welfare state.     

From Merkel to Kramp‐Karrenbauer: Can German Christian Democracy Reinvent Itself?

Germany's Christian Democrats have started preparing for the time after Angela Merkel. After ten years as German chancellor facing a weak opposition, Merkel unexpectedly split the country in late 2015 and early 2016 because of her ‘open border’ policies that allowed more than 1 million refugees and migrants to rapidly enter Germany. Her management of the subsequent crisis was largely considered a failure and her party suffered a series of dramatic election defeats. Reacting to the negative electoral feedback, and in particular the breakthrough of the rightist and anti‐immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), the Christian Democratic Union organised an intra‐party contest to replace Merkel as party leader. Three candidates with different political profiles, Annegret Kramp‐Karrenbauer, Friedrich Merz and Jens Spahn, contested the election. By voting for Kramp‐Karrenbauer, the CDU membership voiced support for maintaining a large‐scale political coalition based on efforts to find compromises between different party wings and social and cultural interests.