新体制下高职院校投入制度改革研究

建立科学而完备的教育投入制度是我国当前十分重要的改革任务,应该提高到中华民族兴衰和发展的高度来认识。我国教育体制改革提出“按照新的管理体制和运行机制办学”的基本原则,国家对高等职业教育给予了积极的支持和高度的关注,但要切实解决好高职教育投入的制度、路径与方式等问题,建立可行、稳定而有效的经费投入体系仍然是一个既重大又迫切,并且是短时间内难以解决的问题。     

Assessing the EU’s Transatlantic Regulatory Powers Using the Choice of Policy Instruments as Measurement of Preference Attainment

To what extent is the European Union (EU) exercising global regulatory power? This article investigates this question through a comparative study of two significant global policy fields: data-protection and banking with a special focus on the choice of policy instruments. Both cases suggest that the actual role of the EU is more complex than either exercising or being subjected to global regulatory power. This concerns not only the relationship between the EU and the member-states. The article suggests that the EU is in a better position to conclude global regulatory deals when the negotiating competencies sit with one EU institutional actor.     

高职英语的计算机和网络辅助教学模式研究

在实验对比研究中,发现计算机和网络辅助语言教学模式有利于提高实验组学生二语学习经验动机,降低其外语课堂焦虑和提高其接受性的英语语言技能,但对其学习策略运用水平的提高作用不显著。另外,计算机和网络辅助语言教学模式对实验组不同水平学生在动机,焦虑及策略运用上的影响也各不相同。为发挥基于计算机和网络在高职公共英语教学中的积极作用,应该建立利用计算机和网络技术促进高职公共英语教学的长效机制,有效提高语言自主学习策略训练效果,重视网络与常规课堂相结合,并积极从固定学习平台向移动学习平台转移。     

试论发展云南高等职业教育的必要性

云南省积极发展高等职业教育 ,既是建立与完善的职教体系的需要 ,也是高等教育深化改革、调整结构的需要 ,更是逐步形成普通高等教育和高等职业教育共同发展、相互沟通、比例合理的高等教育体系的需要。     

关于行政审批制度改革的若干思考

行政审批是政府的行政职能之一。现行的行政审批制度改革滞后于经济体制改革 ,其中存在的问题制约了市场经济的发展 ,需要深化行政审批制度改革。从行政审批与微观规制、微观规制和宏观调控的关系中分析当前行政审批制度存在的问题 ,可以看出行政审批制度改革的思路是简化审批 ,强化规制     

行政管理创新的法律规制

当今各级政府正在积极探索行政管理的创新,但是许多创新违法违宪,而且比较隐晦.因此,如何规制、监督行政管理创新是我们面临的重要课题.可在事前、事中、事后三个阶段予以规制:在事前判断创新目的是否保障公民基本权利,在事中创新是否遵循正当程序,而事后可由立法、行政复议、行政诉讼甚至违宪审查予以决定创新的存废.     

论司法行政机关与律师自律组织之关系

我国的律师监管体制经历了从单一司法行政管理阶段到行政管理和行业管理相结合的阶段.在不断加强和规范律师协会的行业自律管理的同时,我们必须看到律师协会行业管理的不足.为了克服律师协会自律管理的不足和缺陷,司法行政机关应该把管理重点从直接管理律师转变到管理律师自律组织上来,这样才能够形成行政管理和自治管理良性互动的律师管理模式.     

警务战略资源提升的一般规律及基本途径

警务战略资源是警务战略指导者能够直接用于警务战略计划推行的各种力量的统称,既包括有形的资源,也包括无形的资源。公安机关为了有效推进警务战略计划的实施及战略目标的实现,必须加大资源开发建设的力度,有效提升警务战略资源。这一实践活动,既有自身内在的规律特点,也有具体的提升方法和途径。     

行政执法的博弈分析——兼论行政法研究中的方法论问题

社会经济生活中广为存在的博弈现象与行政执法在精神实质、价值追求、研究视角、的契合性,博弈理论在多学科和多实践领域的应用经验,为行政执法的博弈分析奠定了方法论基础.着力于识别博弈现象与行政执法二者之间存在的关键连接点,通过博弈论的主体、行为、效益、信息等理论构件对行政执法进行博弈分析,进而探索以博弈理论引领行政执法观念的更新,以重构行政执法机制,提高行政执法效率,从而实现行政博弈过程追求的纳什均衡和行政法制指向的利益平衡.     

INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES’ LIABILITY FOR ONLINE ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH

Considering the prevalence of online hate speech and its harm and risks to the targeted people, democratic discourse and public security, it is necessary to combat online hate speech. For this purpose, internet intermediaries play a crucial role as new governors of online speech. However, there is no universal definition of hate speech. Rules concerning this vary in different countries depending on their social, ethical, legal and religious backgrounds. The answer to the question of who can be liable for online hate speech also varies in different countries depending on the social, cultural, history, legal and political backgrounds. The First Amendment, cyberliberalism and the priority of promoting the emerging internet industry lead to the U.S. model, which offers intermediaries wide exemptions from liability for third-party illegal content. Conversely, the Chinese model of cyberpaternalism prefers to control online content on ideological, political and national security grounds through indirect methods, whereas the European Union (EU) and most European countries, including Germany, choose the middle ground to achieve balance between restricting online illegal hate speech and the freedom of speech as well as internet innovation. It is worth noting that there is a heated discussion on whether intermediary liability exemptions are still suitable for the world today, and there is a tendency in the EU to expand intermediary liability by imposing obligation on online platforms to tackle illegal hate speech. However, these reforms are again criticized as they could lead to erosion of the EU legal framework as well as privatization of law enforcement through algorithmic tools. Those critical issues relate to the central questions of whether intermediaries should be liable for user-generated illegal hate speech at all and, if so, how should they fulfill these liabilities? Based on the analysis of the different basic standpoints of cyberliberalists and cyberpaternalists on the internet regulation as well as the arguments of proponents and opponents of the intermediary liability exemptions, especially the debates over factual impracticality and legal restraints, impact on internet innovation and the chilling effect on freedom of speech in the case that intermediaries bear liabilities for illegal third-party content, the paper argues that the arguments for intermediary liability exemptions are not any more tenable or plausible in the web 3.0 era. The outdated intermediary immunity doctrine needs to be reformed and amended. Furthermore, intermediaries are becoming the new governors of online speech and platforms now have the power to curtail online hate speech. Thus, the attention should turn to the appropriate design of legal responsibilities of intermediaries. The possible suggestions could be the following three points: Imposing liability on intermediaries for illegal hate speech requires national law and international human rights norms as the outer boundary; openness, transparency and accountability as internal constraints; balance of multi-interests and involvement of multi-stakeholders in internet governance regime.