Judicial Review,Irrationality, and the Legitimacy of Merits-Review

The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. The author in a previous article in this study found that the courts, on occasions, had intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions arguably were not irrational. To this end, the purpose of this article is to assess the constitutionality of these seemingly low standards of irrationality. The author does so by reference either to the manner of review employed—the use of the proportionality principle, for example—or the context of the administrative decision under scrutiny, such as the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The author finds that the cases from the previous article where low standards of irrationality were arguably adopted were, in fact, legitimate according to these chosen methods of evaluation. However, this is an interim conclusion because, for reasons of word length, the author is unable to complete a full assessment here. It is therefore proposed that a subsequent article will continue to examine the constitutionality of these cases. Furthermore, the author will also try and establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are excluded from irrationality review. If the author is unsuccessful in this regard, the final conclusion of this study will inevitably be that low standards of judicial intervention exist without limit—a clear assault on the constitutional principle stated above.

Do a Law’s Policy Implications Affect Beliefs About Its Constitutionality? An Experimental Test

Although a substantial empirical literature has found associations between judges' political orientation and their judicial decisions, the nature of the relationship between policy preferences and constitutional reasoning remains unclear. In this experimental study, law students were asked to determine the constitutionality of a hypothetical law, where the policy implications of the law were manipulated while holding all legal evidence constant. The data indicate that, even with an incentive to select the ruling best supported by the legal evidence, liberal participants were more likely to overturn laws that decreased taxes than laws that increased taxes. The opposite pattern held for conservatives. The experimental manipulation significantly affected even those participants who believed their policy preferences had no influence on their constitutional decisions.     

未成年人判处罚金刑的理解与适用——评高法2006年法释1号解释的缺陷和不足

2006年1号司法解释虽然从保护未成年人和便于未成年人罚金刑执行的角度,对司法实践中存在的争议问题予以了明确,具有一定的合理性,但它仍然存在一定的不足和缺陷,具体表现在,个别条文用语脱离立法现状,对垫付人的范围没有任何限制,对其他人垫竹罚金的,不应规定人民法院“应当”允许。     

市场呼唤面向社会服务的司法鉴定机构——对148起物证技术鉴定案件的总结

司法鉴定是服务于审判活动的科学实证活动 ,司法鉴定进入诉讼领域 ,实际上就是科学进入司法工作。我国现行的司法鉴定体制已经暴露出诸多弊端 ,这种现状与当前提出的以司法公正为核心 ,以司法公开为重点的司法改革目标直接相违背。公正与效率是 2 1世纪司法改革的主旋律 ,司法部决定创建新的司法鉴定制度 ,并对原有鉴定体制进行整合 ,其中心工作就是强化面向社会服务的司法鉴定 ,使其成为创建有中国特色司法鉴定制度的突破点。     

秘密监听司法审查制度研究

秘密监听作为一种高科技刑事侦查手段,在侦查实践中被广泛应用。而我国目前对秘密监听措施的实施是由侦查机关内部审查批准的。由于缺乏外部监督,因而导致权力的滥用并使公民权利处于危险境地;将其纳入法典的调整范围并设立健全的司法审查机制,业已成为改革与完善刑事侦查措施的当务之急。     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.

     

关于集体土地征收案件的争议焦点和裁判结果的调查与思考

来自数据库"北大法宝"和中国裁判文书网的22篇关于集体土地征收案件的终审裁判文书揭示了如下事实:集体土地征收案件的争议焦点主要集中在受案范围、原告资格、诉讼请求、起诉期限、起诉程序、管辖法院、土地征收程序及土地征收补偿等方面,而法院大多支持原审被告。这一现象说明,只有通过制度设计来降低司法维权的成本和提高司法维权的实效,才能引导土地被征收人通过司法途径维权。同时,还应当完善行政程序违法的判决形式、驳回诉讼请求判决的适用条件以及管辖权转移制度,加强涉农法制宣传教育。     

我国现行侦查监督制度之突围

在中国现行刑事诉讼制度中,检察机关现行侦查监督工作尚未充分控制并制约侦查权。在侦查监督的现实运行中,侦查监督的权威与手段较弱。修改后的《刑事诉讼法》从若干方面相应完善了侦查监督程序,对于促进司法公正,保障公民人权等方面具有积极作用。贯彻新刑事诉讼法应以强化人权保障为目标,建构强制侦查措施司法审查制度,赋予检察机关对侦查活动的适时介入及全面引导权,侦查监督的相应保障权,完善侦查监督内部规范化工作规程,以确保侦查监督在司法实践中具有现实可操作性,籍此提高检察机关的侦查监督能力和权威。     

论当事人诉权之保障

诉权是当事人请求法院运用审判权解决民事纠纷或保护民事权益的权利。回溯民事诉权理论的历史源流,有助于分析我国民事诉权内涵的发展并提出新的认识。考察我国民事诉权立法缺陷和司法运行的偏离现状,有助于提出有针对性的制度建设途径。在诉权保障体系构建之后。应着眼当事人滥用诉权的社会现实,探讨对民事诉权滥用的制约机制。     

判决书中的法官形象

全面看待法官是公民的权利和公民责任,全面展示法官形象则是法官的本分。于法官或公民而言,全面的法官形象应该在判决书中。在一份全面、充分说理的严格意义的判决书中,法官是法律信用的督察者、法律解释中的立法者、道德与普法教育中的教师、法律服务中的售货员、合议博弈中的商人以及学者。