略论我国社会预警和应急管理法律体系的现状及其完善

我国已初步建立以《突发事件应对法》为基本法、大量单行立法与之并存的应急管理法律体系,但形式上仍需加强统一立法,制定统一的《紧急状态法》和《灾害救助和补偿法》等法律;内容方面应当重视程序制度建设,包括内部程序制度化和将民众参与纳入应对机制,扩展行政指导等柔性执法方式在危机应对中的应用,建立灾害保险制度,完善灾害救助和补偿制度等。     

论民事诉讼程序参与原则

从权利的角度说,"程序参与原则"旨在保障当事人及相关第三人的"程序参与权"(包括诉讼知情权、诉讼听审权),因而属于"正当程序保障"的范畴。在民事诉讼中,程序参与原则普遍适用于争讼程序、非讼程序和执行程序及裁定程序,但适用情形和具体要求各有不同。作为法律原则,若当事人及相关第三人和法院违反程序参与原则的,均产生相应的法律后果并有相应的纠正程序或救济程序。     

Sowing the seeds of skepticism? Electoral-integrity beliefs among political elites

Elections in many democracies have come under attack “from within”, with political elites challenging the integrity of the electoral process and calling its outcomes into question. Such allegations may delegitimize democratic outcomes and compromise citizens' confidence in elections. Yet aside from their rhetoric, little is known about political elites' electoral-integrity beliefs. This study breaks new ground by investigating how political elites perceive the integrity of elections, and which factors may account for differences in their electoral-integrity beliefs. Using innovative data from the 2021 candidate survey of the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES), the empirical analysis shows that political candidates exhibit mostly positive views about the integrity of the electoral procedures and the 2021 election, while being more skeptical about the fairness of the campaign period. Moreover, the findings show that negative campaign experiences, an affiliation with a populist political party, and electoral defeat are important drivers of candidates' skepticism about the integrity of elections. These findings provide novel insights on the nature, background, and diagnostic significance of political elites’ electoral-integrity beliefs in modern democracies.     

Do Citizens Tolerate Antidemocratic Statements?

Antidemocratic statements by politicians have become part of politics in several backsliding democracies. Yet, we know little about how ordinary citizens think antidemocratic statements should be dealt with. We employ conjoint experiments fielded in the United States, Germany, and Hungary to investigate the extent to which citizens think undemocratic and other controversial statements should be restricted. Specifically, we randomly assign antidemocratic statements – threatening electoral integrity directly or indirectly – along with other controversial statements to hypothetical politicians running for elections. We show that citizens wish to ban antidemocratic statements relative to generic placebo statements. Moreover, this willingness corresponds to their willingness to ban other forms of controversial statements that either represent offenses to different identity markers or induce material risks. We also find that the willingness to ban antidemocratic statements is evident across the three countries and regardless of gender, education, age, and partisanship, with only modest differences in the results between countries and subgroups. Our findings thus indicate that citizens generally care about democracy, which is good news for democracy and electoral integrity, but also that they do not care more about democracy than other fundamental values related to material costs or identity markers.     

Politically Alienated Through Low‐Wage Work? Evidence from Panel Data

Does low‐wage work lead to political alienation? Even though low‐wage sectors have grown in the advanced industrialized world, empirical evidence so far is sparse. This paper uses household panel data to investigate the effect of low‐wage work spells on political alienation. We argue that repeated low‐wage work spells lead to preference divergence between a low‐income and the median‐income earner, leading to withdrawal from democratic politics among low‐wage earners. Using Swiss household panel data and fixed‐effects regressions, we show that the accumulation of low‐wage work spells decreases systemic trust. In a second step, we demonstrate that an interaction of eroding systemic trust with low‐wage work is associated with increased individual abstention probabilities. These results highlight the threat of a systematic under‐representation of low‐wage workers in the political sphere.     

Respecting communities: languages and cultural understanding in international development work

This viewpoint summarises the key research themes from “The Listening Zones of NGOs” research project, that brought together NGO practitioners, language practitioners and academics from a number of disciplines. The research found that paying close attention to languages contributes to successful development programmes, according to the staff of both international and national NGOs. However, the general shift towards an emphasis on technical and thematic expertise among many INGOs has led to the risk that contextual knowledge and the resourcing of language and cultural understanding are not given priority. For INGOs, listening to the competing voices of multiple actors and organisations presents major challenges. The viewpoint presents ways of addressing those challenges.     

Expensive English: an accessible language approach for Papua New Guinea agricultural development

Language used in capacity development programmes is usually that of the donor country, often English. However, research shows that the language used can be detrimental to the success of the programme. Little attention has been given to the issue of language, yet it is important that programme participants fully understand the capacity development programme’s concepts to ensure that the programme achieves its full potential. This article explores an accessible language approach to a Papua New Guinea development programme. Arguments are based on an in-country research project designed to provide women and men with deeper understanding of gender equity.     

中国与欧洲公众环境参与权的比较研究

公众参与权的保障与实现程度直接关系着民主决策的科学性和有效性,关系着全面建设社会主义现代化国家的进程。针对环境问题而言,如何从法律理论与实践两个层面更有效地回应公众的“参与权”,值得深入研究。相较而言,欧洲的相关法律制度走在世界前列,从纵向发展的视角来看,中国和欧洲在保障公众环境参与权的进程以及所面临的挑战方面有着相似之处,欧洲经验对我国有着极其重要的借鉴作用。中国和欧洲公众环境参与权有着不同的理论基础、历史发展进程、参与范围、参与层次、参与阶段以及支持者。基于这些相似性和不同点,立足于中国的具体国情和实际,欧洲公众环境参与权保障法律机制能为我国解决类似挑战提供一些可能路径。