新型受贿罪的司法认定:以刑事指导案例(潘玉梅、陈宁受贿案)为视角

在最高人民法院发布的指导性案例中,刑事指导性案例具有重要的地位。刑事指导性案例对犯罪认定与刑罚裁量等有关法律问题,采取提炼指导性案例中的裁判要点的方式,确立了有关司法规则。本文以潘玉梅、陈宁受贿案为对象进行规范分析,重点研究裁判要点,认为这一裁判基本上是最高人民法院颁布的司法解释意见的重复,案例指导制度的设立初衷并没有实现。尽管如此,我们还是可以通过本案,发现一些在阅读条文化的司法解释时不能得到的收获,尤其是具体的案情对于我们理解司法解释提供了一个全新的视角。     

构建我国刑罚推迟执行制度的思考

以刑罚推迟执行制度取代暂予监外执行制度是一种理性的必然选择.鉴于暂予监外执行制度目前存在的问题,构建刑罚推迟执行制度时,应从实体规则和实施规则两个方面展开.     

公共权力场潜规则的特征、成因及对策研究

公共权力场潜规则干扰了社会主义现代化建设,影响了市场经济的发展,阻碍了民主政治的进步,损害了人民政府的公信力,破坏了社会主义和谐社会的构建。从权力场域的角度来看,公共权力场潜规则的产生有其独特的原因,应通过廉政建设、制约和监督公共权力等途径来消除其危害。     

历史规律与中国特色社会主义

马克思主义原创理论正确地肯定了历史规律与物质运动规律的趋同性.却没有深入考察二者的趋异性.由于人类物质活动越来越采取精神形式进行.而精神形态依赖文化传承关系,因此主体活动具有选择性.并导致历史规律具有单一要素间因果丛然性、多元要素间趋势必然性、复杂要素间系统必然性的区别.中国特色社会主义既是经济落后民族为主体,又采用了市场方式发展.要正确判断这一现象,只能运用发展马克思主义方式来实现.其中最为关键的是既坚持又改造市场体制.     

宽严相济刑事政策适用的理性思考——以我国法律传统为视角

近年来,随着学界对宽严相济刑事政策的关注和推崇、党和政府对宽严相济刑事政策的肯定和推广、实务界对宽严相济刑事政策的高调贯彻,"宽严相济"几乎成了法律界的流行语。然而,如果我们从中国法律传统的角度,审视宽严相济刑事政策的司法现状;以构建成熟法治国为目标,反思该刑事政策的司法运作。就不难发现,由于司法传统的浸染,宽严相济的政策性适用已不适当地挤占了立法空间。法治话语下的宽严相济刑事政策必须坚持法律是基础、政策是导向的定位原则。刑事法律也应当根据刑事政策之需要,及时进行立法、修改、补充。     

新刑诉法技术专家质证规则研究

新刑事诉讼法及新近出台相关司法解释中技术专家的出现将会对刑事诉讼中鉴定意见的质证产生很大影响.技术专家对刑事诉讼质证具有很强的必要性.我国刑事诉讼技术专家质证规则包括一般性规则、原理性规则、程序性规则.这些规则应当达到的效果包括司法与社会两个方面.     

刑事诉讼中的传闻证据规则探究

在刑事诉讼中,如果允许传闻证据无限地流入审判,则会对裁判者认定事实的准确性造成负面影响;同时也会损害当事人的程序参与权,并最终殃及当事人的实体权益。为了化解传闻证据所引发的风险,各国都努力设计相应的对策,其中堪称成熟者当属英美法系国家所制定的传闻证据规则。因此我国有必要对英美法系国家的传闻证据规则进行深入的域外考察,通过概念解构和规则分析的方式探究其传闻证据的深刻内涵和传闻证据规则发展中的经验启示,从而推进我国刑事诉讼中传闻证据规则的完善和发展。     

浅论我国表见代理制度的立法规定及司法适用

我国<合同法>正式确立了表见代理制度,但规定得比较简单、原则.关于表见代理有许多问题存在争论,而现行<合同法>中关于表见代理制度的规定存在明显缺陷,有必要对<合同法>规定的表见代理成立条件做出某些法律适用上的限制性解释.建议进一步完善表见代理的立法规定.同时,就表见代理在司法实践中的认定以及程序操作等常见问题也存有一些值得探讨之处.以期对表见代理的理论和实践有所帮助.     

From the Wembley Conference to the ‘McDonnell Amendment’: Labour's Leadership Nomination Rules

A recent change to the Labour party's nomination rules for leadership elections was the eighth such major modification of this brief clause in the party's rule book since 1981. These changes have provided a barometer of factional conflict over this period and indicate the importance of gate‐keeping powers in leadership selection. This article recounts the history of these eight rule changes. It shows how the proportion of Labour MPs (and later MEPs) required to nominate candidates in leadership elections has oscillated markedly, as the left has tried to reduce it while centrists have sought to increase it. The most recent change in 2017, when the threshold was decreased to 10 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs, was a victory for the left. The article argues that the changes to Labour's nomination rules, while lower‐key than the extension of voting rights from MPs to ordinary members, have been just as significant.     

Hung Parliaments and the Need for Clearer Rules of Government Formation

The general elections of 2017 and 2010 produced hung parliaments in which no single party could command an overall majority; in May 2015 the UK only narrowly avoided that outcome. When a parliament is hung, more than one potential government can be viable, and the constitutional rules that determine who has the first right to form the government can thus have a decisive influence on which government forms. In the past, the UK has applied several potentially contradictory rules (based on conventions and principles), which do not all follow an equally democratic logic. This status quo is problematic because it can generate political controversy and uncertainty, in addition to jeopardising the Monarch's role in the government formation process. A reform that enables parliament to elect the leader who will be tasked with the formation of the next government would resolve these problems and provide constitutional clarity.