Who Gives Evidence to Parliamentary Committees? A Comparative Investigation of Parliamentary Committees and their Constituencies

This article focuses on the interaction between parliamentary committees and external actors. How is the interaction organised, and how does it influence which interests are voiced? The authors show that institutional variation in procedures for calling witnesses and variation in committee agendas influence both the composition of actors and the concentration of evidence. By composition of actors, they refer to the set of different actor types involved. By evidence concentration, they refer to the extent to which evidence is provided by a relatively small share of active actors. The study is based on a new data set of all contacts between parliamentary committees and external actors in one year across three countries: the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands. Interestingly, the findings show that procedures of invitation rather than open calls increase the diversity of actor composition and decrease the concentration of actor evidence. This, however, comes at a cost, since the overall volume of contacts is reduced.     

The burden of (homo)sexual identity in Singapore

This article explores issues that arise out of the confluence of homosexual rights as human rights in the context of the Southeast Asian city‐state of Singapore. The refusal of the Government of Singapore in 1997 to register the nascent, indigenous, gay, lesbian and bisexual group ‘People Like Us’, underscores the position Singapore has taken in relation to the wider public discourse about the difference between Singaporean (Asian) values and those held by the West. The battle of values as explicated by the Peoples Action Party,¹ has relied heavily on a reverse ‘orientalism’, indeed an ‘occidentalism’, which, laden with references to the colonialism, perceived relative economic and moral decline and imperialism of the West in contrast to the majestic rise of the material success of post‐colonial Singapore, has deployed the issue of homosexuality as a defining aspect of Western culture and society, thereby sustaining an imagined state where the purity of family life is entrenched and safe. Homosexual activity, although not persecuted endemically, and despite its social and cultural presence, is illegal in Singapore, carefully monitored and contained. Homosexual identity, particularly in terms of the gay or lesbian identified person, is also perceived to be a Western construct and import, and is officially demonized to assist in the formation of a barrier between the so‐called East and West. In this sense, homosexuality is part of an imagined border where cultural and social mores are specifically defined and positioned in terms of difference.     

Vested Interests

SUMMARY

Interest groups are key players in contemporary campaigns and elections. Along with candidates and political parties, interest groups invest heavily in attempting to influence the outcomes of electoral contests, including presidential races. While scholars have investigated the resource allocation strategies of presidential candidates, little is known about how interest groups distribute resources in presidential campaigns. This study examines spending on political advertising in the 2000 presidential election and compares interest groups' resource allocation decisions to those of the candidates' organizations and the national political parties. The findings reveal that, although interest groups are numerous, disconnected and geographically dispersed, these entities—in the aggregate—adopt allocation strategies similar to those of candidates and parties.     

利益冲突视域下的公共权力价值判断回归

公共权力的基本属性和核心价值是公共性,维护和实现公共利益最大化是公共权力运行的内在价值判断。从利益冲突发生的内在逻辑来看,起点是权力资源的配置与利益的获取之间的正比例关系,过程是委托——代理,主要场景是公与私的交界处,利益冲突实质上是对公共权力价值判断的一种扭曲。以公共性的原则来优化公共权力构成、强化公共权利归属、重塑公共行政道德、规范公共权力私人性走向、实现公共权力价值判断的回归,是防止利益冲突、确保公共权力在正确的轨道上良好运行的有效途径。     

Democracy and Troubled Autonomy: Sectarian Politics and Civil Society in Japan

Civil society organizations (CSOs) exist in overlapping fields of influence, often within contentious relationships. Although the autonomy of a CSO is generally considered critical, currently available conceptualizations of civil society tend to focus on its relation to the state and minimize the role of political parties and social movement organizations. Drawing on the case study of the Women's Democratic Club (WDC), a women's organization in Japan established in the period immediately after World War II, this article examines the ways in which CSOs' embeddedness in their socio-political contexts problematizes organizational autonomy. As a non-partisan organization with democratic values, the WDC promoted egalitarianism and embraced heterogeneous membership within the organization. However, its embeddedness in the political left and its members’ divided and conflicting loyalties challenged its autonomy as an organization. This article seeks to contribute to the inclusion of non-governmental organizations in theoretical and empirical considerations of autonomy of civil society.     

多重利益博弈下的地方政府治理群体性事件路径选择

多重利益博弈下的地方政府治理群体性事件的行为选择更多是基于放大群体性事件的某些不当行动方式和破坏结果而选择的预防与控制,难以匹配群体性事件的内在逻辑。坚持公平正义的利益平衡导向,拓展公民利益表达渠道,强化群体性行为组织引导,是地方政府治理群体性事件的有效路径选择,可以逐步化解群体性事件产生的根源,实现对群体性事件有序和理性的引导。     

论我国环境公益民事诉讼的原告范围——基于我国《民事诉讼法》第55条的分析

原告范围的确定是环境公益民事诉讼制度设计中最为核心的问题。根据《民事诉讼法》第55条,法律规定的机关和有关组织可以提起环境公益民事诉讼。该条规定存在着立法体例不科学、列举不恰当及用语不明晰之弊端。由于短期内不可能再次对《民事诉讼法》进行修改,故在《环境保护法》修正案中作出相应的规定,并以司法解释明确"机关"、"有关组织"及"环境公共利益"的概念,将是可行的选择。     

民事公益诉讼诉权的属性及行使

我国民事诉讼法最近一次的修订确立了民事公益诉讼制度.这一制度拓展了人民法院民事诉讼的受案范围,将民事诉讼立法保护的合法权益从私权扩充到了社会公共利益领域,法定的国家机关和有关组织特别是人民检察院被赋予了民事公诉权,有可能成为民事公益诉讼的原告.惟其如此,民事公益诉讼的诉权就不应被当做一种权利,而是具有权力的属性,其中包含了义务,是权利义务的统一体,表现为一种职责.民事公益诉讼诉权的行使也因此必须遵循一些特别的原则.     

“垃圾下乡”与农村土地保护——基于社会学视角的分析

"垃圾下乡"在城镇化过程中是一个先结构的选择。通过政府间的共谋,将农村土地变成了城市居民处理生活垃圾的公地。这种行为侵占了农村土地,损害了土地的耕种环境。在此过程中,受益圈与受害圈的分离,受益圈行为的分散性与效果的累积性,受害圈抗争的无力性使得农村土地在面对城市"垃圾下乡"中得不到相应的保护。改变这种状况取决于受害圈的抗争,技术的支撑及政策的转变等。     

权利的性质探析——基于利益、社会和规范的反思

权利外在地表达着"利益",它通过利益来呈现人们的对抗冲突与社会合作。但权利并不等同于利益,它在社会视角下以义务和社会责任来表达其本质属性。义务之互惠性使得人们在交往中获得稳定的行为期待,而权利的根本要义就存在于这种社会合作关系中。法律规范上的权利概念从来不是实用主义的或者权宜之计的修辞,相反却应以维护法律的规范性、权威性和尊严为存在的依据。