Turkey – from tutelary to delegative democracy

Guillermo O’Donnell’s influential work ‘Delegative Democracy’ set the discourse on a peculiar type of democracy. Lying between representative democracy and authoritarianism, the uniqueness of delegative democracy lies in its features, including an absence of horizontal accountability, strong centralised rule, individual leadership with unchecked powers, a cult figure embodying the nation and clientelist practices. While delegative democracies seem to arise out of presidential systems, Turkey, though a parliamentary system, has also displayed the distinctive features of delegative democracies. This paper identifies three characteristics of delegative democracy, which are responsible for the lack of democratic consolidation, if not the erosion of democracy itself: anti-institutionalism, an anti-political agenda and clientelism. Arguing that delegative democracy is the best concept with which to examine contemporary Turkey, the paper lays out how, post-2011, Turkey has demonstrated the three elements of delegative democracy. The final section discusses the implications of the Turkish case for scrutinising the very possibility of delegative democracy in parliamentary regimes.     

民主宪政与社会主义和谐社会的实现

民主宪政是中国自清末立宪运动以来孜孜以求的梦想,也是我国建设“法治国家”的根本目标;而和谐社会作为全面建设小康社会的目标之一,一直是人类追求的美好理想,这两大目标紧密相连,两者相辅相成,缺一不可。只有实现了和谐社会,才能为我国的民主宪政的孕育发展奠定基础;只有实现民主宪政,才能保障和谐社会的实现和健康发展。民主宪政与和谐社会的实现须尊重和保障人权,树立宪法至上的权威和司法公正。     

Procedural justice,obligation to obey,and cooperation with police in a sample of Jamaican citizens

ABSTRACT

Procedural justice theory plays a central role in understanding police–citizen relationships. To test the universality of procedural justice theory, researchers have tended to assess the relative impacts of normative and instrumental models of policing in different geopolitical contexts. Building on Reisig and Lloyd’s study in Jamaica, we test in the current study the relative impacts of procedural justice (a normative factor) and police effectiveness and risk of sanctioning (instrumental factors) on Jamaicans’ obligation to obey the police and willingness to cooperate with police. We found that procedural justice predicted both obligation to obey and cooperation, although obligation did not predict cooperation. And while effectiveness predicted obligation, it was not significantly related to cooperation. Lastly, older citizens were more willing to cooperate with police. The study’s implications for policy and future research are discussed.     

国际法视角下的柏威夏寺领土争端及其对我国的启示

柬埔寨、泰国间的柏威夏寺领土争端吸引了全世界的关注.联合国国际法院曾于1962年对柬埔寨与泰国间的柏威夏寺领土争端案进行裁判,该裁判对国际领土争端的相关原则进行了阐释和重申,在国际法上产生了广泛的影响.对这一裁判进行回顾和解析,不仅有利于我们更好地了解当前柬埔寨与泰国间关于柏威夏寺的争端,也可对我国边界争端的解决提供某种借鉴.     

The European Court of Justice and its political impact

This article reviews recent advances in the study of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and its political impact at the European and member state levels. New quantitative as well as qualitative analyses show with great empirical precision that member state preferences guide the Court. The article summarises these findings, but argues that greater attention needs to be given to the (over-)constitutionalisation of EU law in order to fully capture the political impact of ECJ jurisprudence. Even if European judges are less activist than is often assumed and individual decisions are more restrained in the face of member state opposition, incrementally, case law evolves in a highly expansive fashion. And, exercising caution regarding unrealistic expectations about quasi-deterministic judicial law-making, it is found that the Court’s constitutionalised jurisprudence impacts heavily on European and member state policy-making.     

促进社会公正构建社会和谐

促进社会公正、构建社会和谐对我国社会主义物质文明、政治文明和精神文明的建设起着至关重要的作用,对落实科学发展观、全面建设小康社会具有非常重要的意义。当前我国社会中存在的各种不公现象,是我国经济社会快速发展过程中产生的问题,有其客观、主观两方面的原因;应在正确分析和理解原因的基础上,采取针对性措施,坚持正确的思想观念与具体行动措施相结合,治标措施与治本措施相结合,减少甚至消除社会不公现象,促进构建和谐社会的伟大事业。     

程序正义及其局限性

程序正义是现代法的程序结构派生出的一种伦理形态 ,其本质为程序之中的伦理、非人格化的伦理、相对化和形式化的伦理、程序化的制度伦理。现实当中的程序正义是选举、司法以及立法、行政管理正当化的观念基础 ,宪政民主体制的伦理内涵。然而 ,程序正义之不幸在于其代表的乃是强者的正义 ,因而对弱者的权利保障是宪政民主体制不可缺少的组成部分。     

非法证据排除中的“实质说理”与改革建议

关于非法证据排除规则,我国2012年《刑事诉讼法》确立了“非法言词与实物区别排除”,或者说,“强制排除与裁量排除相结合”的模式。当前,非法证据排除说理是整个刑事裁判文书说理的一个“短板”。在司法实践中,许多瑕疵证据、非法证据通过“补正”、“合理解释”被采纳,但缺乏“实质说理”。强化以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革,需要强化非法证据排除的“实质说理”。这一完善过程是艰巨的,涉及实体规则、程序规则、配套制度等方面的综合改革。从长远来看,有必要建构一独立自洽的针对证据合法性调查的“诉中诉”程序。     

认真对待司法经验——兼论《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第64条

民事诉讼《证据规定》第64条第一次以司法解释的形式,明确规定了法官在没有法律规定,或者法律规定不明的情况下,运用日常生活经验进行自主判断的权力,为法官的“无法”司法提供了制度依据。而法官的自由裁量离不开司法经验,广义的司法经验是泛指司法实践活动中逐渐形成和积累的关于法、法律和案件纠纷处理方面的知识和技能,是整个司法实践活动中形成的司法职业共识。狭义的司法经验则仅指法官个人在司法实践活动中的心得和体会,以及逐渐积累的知识和技能。在成文法背景下,司法经验的功能主要体现在法官的事实审理过程,具体地讲,司法经验在司法认知、事实推定、法律和证据选择、证据判断和证据采信等方面具有重要作用。因此,应当重视司法经验,并且在司法实践中合理利用司法经验;同时为防止司法自由裁量权的滥用,将司法经验的使用限制在合理的制度允许的范围内。     

论检察活动的原则

检察活动原则是对检察工作根本性、整体性的要求,贯穿于检察机关法律监督工作的各个方面和各个环节,体现了检察机关的性质,规范着检察机关行使法律监督职能活动,对检察机关正确行使检察权具有重要作用。检察活动原则主要有法治原则、检察一体原则、依法独立行使检察权原则、客观公正原则、理性原则和正当程序原则等,这些原则不仅对检察活动具有普遍指导意义,也是检验检察权行使合法性和合理性的重要标准。