新领导力——古代领导力与现代领导力比较研究

现代领导力是古代领导力的继承,但不是复制,它与古代领导力有本质的区别。通过对中国古代领导力与现代领导力的比较研究,可以为我们对现代领导力的内容及其提升提供新的理解。     

我国证人资格制度路径选择——以中美证人资格比较为视角

证人资格是诉讼中的一个基本问题。通过对中美两国关于证人资格规定的比较分析,考虑到我国的具体司法体系和现实运作条件等因素,应当从以下几个方面来完善我国证人资格制度:取消单位的证人资格,将证人资格的基本条件规定为"亲身感知案件情况",科学规定证人资格的其他条件,不规定证人资格排除性规定等。     

对我国比较刑诉法研究的检视与反思

比较刑诉法研究对中国现代刑事诉讼理论以及立法起了积极的推动作用,但通过对相关研究历史的考察发现,其存在的问题也不容忽视,虽已有学者进行了一定程度的反思,并提出范式转型来以期解决,但并没有对比较刑诉法研究本身加以诊治。我们需要从研究主体的精英化,研究对象的全球化、全面化,研究方法的多样化、合理化这三个方面着手努力,才能给中国未来刑事诉讼的发展注入新的"一泉活水"。     

海峡两岸背信罪比较研究

《海峡两岸共同打击犯罪及司法互助协议》以列举的方式明确了海峡两岸共同打击的犯罪行为,但两岸对协议中涉及的背信罪行为在刑法的罪名形式、内容表达以及行为的刑罚可责性上都有诸多差异。与台湾“刑法”规定的背信罪行为相较,大陆法律在此行为上存在多种不同性质的法律规制。为使两岸在该行为上的司法互助得以利益均衡,实现两岸对背信行为司法互助的最佳路径是：以台湾背信罪所指涉的行为为准,比较大陆刑法规范对这些行为的法律处置,形成与台湾背信罪行为相同质的多个罪名进行司法互助;大陆未形成刑事处置之台湾背信罪行为则通过个案协商解决。     

中美犯罪被害人补偿制度比较探究

被害人补偿制度是我国近年来司法改革中关注的热点,但学界多从理论上对该制度进行资料整合式的研究,缺少对国外具体实践的近距离观察和分析。对被害人补偿制度比较先进的美国加以探究,将美国联邦及各州被害人补偿机构设置、资金来源、申请程序、资格要求等方面与我国被害人补偿制度的已有实践相比较,以期对我国正式立法构建被害人补偿制度路径有所启发。     

比较法学科的比较框架与核心关注——对比较法学课程内容的再思考

比较法学科的学术关注一贯偏向于知识性,注重私法内容而轻视公法内容;重视对现行法的研究而忽视对制度形成过程的研究;着眼于大陆法系和普通法系几个典型国家的研究而忽略其他国家和地区的法律生活。法律传播和法系扩展的历史反映着世界权力关系的形成及变化。既有的研究缺乏足够的政治、社会和历史关注,从而尚未建立起"真正"得以展开对比的框架,并更新这一学科的核心关注。     

律师事务所担任破产管理人的比较优势分析

我国现行破产法和司法解释对破产管理人做了较为详尽的规定,律师事务所、会计师事务所、清算事务所、清算组以及具有专业资质的个人可以担任破产管理人,这些机构和个体的数量远远超过我国企业破产案件的数量,这就必然导致各主体在破产管理事务中处于竞争状态。破产管理事务始终以法律事务为主导,律师事务所以数量众多、专业性强、规范发展和充分准备等独具比较优势,因而应当成为破产管理人的领头羊。     

Editor's Note

Most scholars explain political interactions within OPEC countries with reference to clusters of economic and political variables. In this paper, we use dyadic interaction data to describe the frequency and affective orientation between OPEC pairs. Explanations for the prominent trends within the four time periods are offered. The analysis suggests that no combination of political or economic factors explain consistently the coalitions and cleavages within OPEC between 1959 and 1974.     

Comparing trends in infanticides in 28 countries, 1960–2009

The term ‘infanticide’ refers to the homicide of a child younger than one year old. In this article, we describe infanticide trends in 28 industrialized countries between 1960 and 2009. The analysis is based on the cause of death data from the WHO Mortality Database and national materials. The purpose is to compare those trends in all these 28 countries not to compare countries per se. Cause of death statistics are based on ICD classification. During the review period, ICD classification changed three times. In addition to describing infanticide trends, we will analyse the impact of those changes on statistical infanticide levels, to be sure that changes in trends could be seen as real, not statistical artefacts. According to our analysis, the change from ICD-7 to ICD-9 in 1968–1970 seems to have had some impact on registered infanticide mortality levels in three of the studied countries. In other countries, the changes did not have any general impact on registered infanticide levels. During the period, infanticide rates decreased in almost all European countries, and increased or were stable in most non-European industrialized countries. Even in Europe, there were significant differences in the decreasing trend between countries. We also found some structural variation behind the trend figures, which raised the question of whether the aggregated infanticide levels really describe an identical phenomenon in different countries.     

Nano‐Industry Operationalizations of “Responsibility”: Charting Diversity in the Enactment of Responsibility

The Collingridge dilemma—the problem of reacting to emerging technology either “too early” or “too late”—is one that is readily recognized by developers and promoters of nanotechnologies. One response can be found in the rise of a discourse of “responsible development” in the science and innovation policy landscape. While a number of commentators have discussed the potential of such initiatives, it remains unclear how responsible development is actually being configured “on the ground,” in private sector nanotechnology. This paper addresses this question by analyzing empirical engagements in Europe and the United States in order to map industry operationalizations of “responsibility” in these contexts. We show that a number of different articulations of “responsibility” are present, including as a response to public lack of trust and perceived public pressure, and as the management of risk. We close by relating these findings to the theoretical literature on responsibility, other contemporary accounts of the ways in which responsible development can be operationalized, and the possibilities that these articulations of responsibility may open up.