论犯罪理论中的折衷主义

近代刑法学自产生以来,经历了从启蒙主义的刑法思想到刑事古典学派(旧派),再到刑事实证学派(新派)的发展历程。新、旧两派的争鸣极大地推动了刑法学理论的繁荣,为各国的刑事司法提供了深厚的理论根基。现时刑法理论中折衷主义盛行,并朝着更加合理的方向发展。     

经济法的可诉性与经济公益诉讼制度

经济法以社会本位为基本价值取向,以维护社会公共利益为根本宗旨。其在促进社会整体利益,保持国民经济健康、和谐发展方面起着其它法律部门不可替代的巨大作用。但由于经济法可诉性的缺失,其自身的价值和功能难以得到完全发挥。基于此,实现经济法的可诉性,建立经济公益诉讼制度,就成为解决和平衡经济纠纷、经济冲突的一条有效途径。     

21世纪初日本对外目标及外交战略探析

21世纪初期,日本在坚持“普通国家化”既定战略目标的基础上,从国家战略原则、战略重点及国家利益出发,围绕日美同盟、联合国外交、亚洲外交、应对全球气候变化等战略重点,力求以“全方位外交”实现日本国家对外目标及外交战略意图。     

村委会选举中的富人贿选现象分析

富人贿选是我国村民自治实践中不可回避的客观现实。富人贿选具有严重的社会危害性,其消极影响主要表现为：压制了农村的民主萌芽,损害了党和政府的形象,加剧了农村社会矛盾,造成了村民“政治冷漠”。结合我国村民自治的发展实践,要想使富人贿选现象得到有效的抑制,一要进一步加强村务公开和民主管理工作,二要不断完善相关法律制度,三要规范村委会成员候选人资格条件,四要加强对选举的指导和监督。     

论利益博弈中法官认证行为的规制

法官在关键证据的认定中会出现利益偏差并导致证据认定结论出现差异,这主要是对利益进行衡量的结果.利益衡量方法有助于提升法官的认证能力,但由于法官运用此方式的不规范性,因利益衡量偏差导致司法不公正的现象比较突出.利益衡量方法作为法学方法论,应当运用到法官证据认定环节.规范法官认证中的利益衡量应首先把握价值衡平方法,并在遵循一般规律的前提下依据不同诉讼形式分别采用不同的方法.     

集团诉讼制度的价值研究——兼评我国的代表人诉讼制度

价值是反映主体与客体之间需要和满足需要的效应关系的范畴,是深刻认识集团诉讼制度的良好视角和工具.集团诉讼价值是法律价值、民事诉讼价值下位的概念.集团诉讼制度的独特品性在于克服集体行动的障碍,共通性在于体现了在新的社会条件下民事诉讼目的论的发展.     

Conceptualising the policy engagement of interest groups: Involvement,access and prominence

While much progress has been made in empirically mapping and analysing a variety of interest group activities in the last decade, less attention has been devoted to conceptual work that clearly defines and distinguishes different forms of policy engagement. This article contributes to this endeavour by developing a theoretical framework that explicitly links currently available measures of the policy engagement of groups to the distinct concepts of group involvement, access and prominence. It argues that greater conceptual clarity will lead to better accumulation of knowledge in the sub‐field and a better understanding of the role of interest groups in political systems.     

EU Simulations and Engagement: Motivating Greater Interest in European Union Politics

While the effects of simulation-based courses on the knowledge of participating students may be marginal in relation to standard lecture and discussion-based courses, this article argues that the greatest leverage is gained by increasing participating students’ level of interest in the subject of study and in politics more broadly. Participants tend to become increasingly absorbed in their roles and in the politics of the institutions at the center of the simulation. To better consider this possibility, we conducted a survey of students participating in the 2015 Mid-Atlantic European Union Simulation and of appropriate control populations. The survey results indeed suggest that, much more than simply acquiring knowledge about the EU, the simulation experience serves to generate more robust interest in the subject of study.     

Competition and switching in public service markets: Can they reduce inequalities?

Regulatory reforms to public infrastructure services across European Union (EU) countries were aimed at increasing consumer welfare by introducing competition and choice into service markets. However, empirical evaluations have questioned whether these reforms have benefitted all consumers, suggesting that vulnerable groups of service users (especially those with lower levels of formal education), might be locked into poorly performing services. We assess the relationship between the level of competition in electricity and fixed telephony markets in EU countries and evaluate the affordability of these services for different socio‐educational layers. Our findings show that – although in countries where there is a relatively high frequency of switching, inequalities between socio‐educational groups are smaller and eventually disappear – competition as such does not play a part. These results suggest that demand‐side regulation that successfully enables consumer switching has the potential to equalize social welfare, thereby reflecting a possible convergence of regulatory instruments and the central aims of the welfare state in this context.     

情理与法律冲突时的利益衡量

情理与法律,既相对立,又相统一。情理是法律的基础,而法律是情理的升华与体系化。法官在适用法律解决纠纷中的重要使命,就是发现、阐明并应用蕴含于法律规则之中的“理”。这种理是法律的精神力量所在,也是司法权威的精神来源。法官在审理案件时,要在掌握法律基本原理的前提下,深刻领悟法律规则背后无形的法律精神。通过创造性的、合理的解释去弥补和完善法律存在的不足,能够平衡互相冲突的利益,实现法律与情理的和谐统一。